View Full Version : John Westlake outlines REALITY to the 'deaf daftees'...!
StanleyB
16-07-2012, 11:21
Anyway, as I'm not a member of pfm or Wigwam
Aaaah, the bad ol' dayz :eyebrows:. Have you noticed how life improved for both of us since then? Maybe there is a moral story in there somewhere :scratch:.
Let's not go there, Stan. Both are good forums in their own right, and cater for their respective 'clientele', just as we do here :)
Marco.
As a matter of interest Marco, would it influence your approach to acquiring equipment if the objectivist viewpoint wins out?
Absolutely. Anything new I discover which, to my ears, improves my system's performance is incorporated (if possible) into my system, as I always have done up until now. Admitting that I'm wrong and/or learning something new is not something that holds any fears for me. After all, making mistakes is all part of the learning process :)
Someone wise once said: "The key to understanding is the realization of where your knowledge ceases".
Part of the reason for this test, if it happens, is to find out if the 'objectivist way' of system building can provide any audible benefits over my current approach. You see, I'm not a blinkered subjectivist, who would no sooner admit he was wrong than drown his dog - the only 'loyalty' I have is to that which allows the hearing of my favourite music more enjoyably/'faithfully' reproduced through my hi-fi system, so if another approach is more beneficial, to my ears, then it's more beneficial. I don't care what it is!
I wonder what would happen, however, if it turned out the other way round, and I was proved 'right'....Or as 'right' as one can be in those circumstances? I live in hope that someone will take me up on this challenge, but I fear that none of the relevant objectivists have the balls to put their neck on the line... ;)
Marco.
Same for me. It's the music that will always win out and I've taken enough blind alleys in the past to know that an open mind is the only way to be when system upgrading.
I wasn't fishing by the way but genuinely curious because I'm not sure how I would react. It's not that I have a particular problem with either viewpoint, each to their own and all that, but I do relate to the subjective side of things more than t'other side :)
No worries... Btw, just to reiterate, here's what I'm proposing:
. Big room at Scalford, with two systems, featuring equipment and ancillaries chosen by the demonstrator (one 'foo- laiden', from a subjectivist, and the other 'foo-free', from an objectivist) set up at either end of the same room.
. All equipment is measured beforehand to ensure that it conforms to 'sonically transparent' status.
. Both systems share the same speakers (tested beforehand to ensure that the amps used in both systems can drive them properly). Same selection of music used for the test, agreed beforehand by both parties.
. The replay volume of both systems is level-matched before the 'show' begins.
The winner, if there is one, is chosen by non-forum members of the general public, attending on the Sunday of the show (in order to ensure no 'votes for your mates'), by completing a voting card and indicating their system preference, and the winner announced at the end of the evening after all votes have been counted.
Obviously, if there is a winner, and a clear preference is expressed by a significant number of people, then the notion of 'sonically transparent' amplifiers all sounding the same, is bollocks. I'll also buy the winner (if it isn't me) a beer :cool:
What's unfair or not to like? :)
Marco.
For me it would have to be in the context of my own listening environment for me to make this leap, the irony of course is I am still using my subjective experience to decide
I be suprised if this gets taken up I remember chatting to Rob Holt (well think it was Rob :confused:) once on AOS about mains cables I invited him to come round to test but he said there be to much expectation bais for this to work for him so it never happened
I would've thought that it could've been done blind, if necessary? Sounds like a convenient excuse to me.
Marco.
Yes I would of gone blind we could of taken it turns to test also
Here's a cable test method someone I'm slightly acquainted with tried:
1. Set your system up so the cable connections aren't normally visible. Lay out a few sets behind the gear in a way that will prevent a viewer from knowing what is actually connected.
2. Lable the cables in a way that makes it easy for someone not familiar with this stuff to ensure correct connections.
3. Have a trusted member of the household periodically change cables, recording the changes in a log. Date and time.
4. When listening, record any observations of differences heard, date and time.
5. After a suitable period, compare the logs.
Not something I'd do with a phono cable, but should work for speaker cables or ICs. I haven't tried it myself yet, and may not, as my wife is nervous around the on/off switches and the volume control, let alone behind the gear. Sounds like an interesting idea though.
I think if you’re going to bother at all Marco you need to do it DBT style.
It’s pretty much accepted as the standard now.:eyebrows:
Given the listeners are random then perhaps include which they preferred.
To make it interesting for all parties the winner, if there is one, gets the losers kit. :D
Hehehehe... Aye, John, good one! :D
I'm trying to keep the test fun (as well as hopefully being informative) and within the spirit of the show, which is informal, so DBX isn't in keeping with that.
Maybe I should offer a cash incentive to get an objectivist to crawl out of the woodwork and take part? ;)
Marco.
From a diehard objectivist on pfm (guess who?):
The amplified gigs I've been to have pretty much all been overloud, coloured and my particular irritation, that the audio image doesn't match the physical positions of the artists on stage.
For those reasons I go to very few gigs which involve amplification.
FFS, what about the soul, emotion and passion of the musical performance - and the connection of such between the band and the audience?? :doh:
But no, these people insist on robotically intellectualising what is supposed to be an emotional experience, and turning it into a technical one... Jeezuz H Christ, they live in a totally different world from the one I inhabit.
If I turned round to my mates at a gig and said: "It's so annoying, chaps, isn't it, when the audio image doesn't match the physical positions of the artists on stage", I know what kind of response I'd get!!! :rfl: :rfl:
I think that someone should prick Serge with a pin, and see if he jumps, as I don't think he's human. Never show or acknowledge emotion and think entirely rationally. Spock would be proud.
Marco.
It’s pretty much accepted as the standard now.:eyebrows:
No, it isn't. DB tests for audio are bad because you are usually listening to a foreign system in a foreign environment, with music that may be unfamiliar and with a strong expectation of hearing differences and getting results. This is nothing like listening to music in a relaxed and enjoyable manner.
See John Atkinson of Stereophile for many well-written articles on why DBT does not yield results.
FFS, what about the soul, emotion and passion of the musical performance - and the connection of such between the band and the audience?? :doh:
Even if you go to the Festival Hall for a concert, you are listening to electronics as well as an orchestra since there is acoustic correction at work. Do I worry, when the LPO are giving it some in the middle of a Shostakovich crescendo, that I am sitting offset in the auditorium and therefore the image isn't optimal? :rfl:
The Grand Wazoo
17-07-2012, 07:38
I don't entirely disagree with him Marco.
It rather depends on context doesn't it? If I were at a Motorhead gig & the sound of the hi-hat was coming from 10 feet to the left of the drum kit, I don't suppose anyone would care or notice. However, if I was at a string quartet recital & the cellist appeared (aurally) to be playing the violin I'd be less impressed.
When listening live, you have the musicians in front of you and in human terms, our visuals ALWAYS take precedence I understand, since this is where the majority of our brain's sensory processing is focused - something like 75%. Take the visuals of the live performance away, and I bet a typical Motorhead style PA wouldn't be at all satisfactory after you got used to the volume level :lol:
THIS is where I get so annoyed by products designed by numbers alone. I keep banging on about "suspension of disbelief" where domestic playback of a music recording is concerned, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. To make for a great performance of speakers especially, you NEED to listen and adjust within the basic design... (apologies, a certain person has been having a go about ATC and Harbeth not having the resources to make truly great drive units, where a certain far eastern driver manufacturer has to be better because they make 8 million cheap drivers a year...)
Daniel Quinn
17-07-2012, 08:22
I,m not sure the scaffold test will solve the problem because I am not at all sure what we are testing , because I’m not at all sure what the objectivists advocate . The subjectivist position is easy , all aspects of hifi from individual resistors, capacitors to supports effect what you hear and thus as no two components are the same , they will not sound the same .
As far as I can see , in terms of amplifiers objectivists do not say all amplifiers sound the same , I recall Mr Auckland saying as such . The problem is it is impossible to know for sure what objectivists do advocate because most of what they say on pfm and hfw is meaningless bollocks . You have to engage in an academic textual exercise to tease how what they are saying and most of what they say is defined in the negative not the positive , ie I know what they don’t believe but try and figure out what they do believe and you get a headache.
So suppose you distil the objectivist dogma down to all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same. Will they agree What measurements , what level of measurement accuracy ? Are there two amplifiers which measure identically ?
The second problem is that I don’t think anybody attending a hi-fi show will not have a a-priori position upon the argument and thus will enter the room knowing what it is for .As humans we have a lot invested in our beliefs and are reluctant to abandon them . I know we are all only killing time till it kills us { Meat Loaf} but personally speaking if the objectivists are right my brain has wasted an awful lot of my time convincing me I hear differences which aren’t their and I will be annoyed . So once the prejudices enter the room – for they must you can not leave then at the door – an objectivist need only say they can hear no difference and perversely a subjectivist need only have a preference , no matter which.
realysm42
17-07-2012, 08:32
I went to the Proms yesterday, for the first time ever (bit different from a rave as it goes :eyebrows:). Beautiful place and we got our seats upgraded massively, we were on the ground 3 from the front :eek:
It made me smirk when I saw the floating room correction stuff on the ceiling. The sound was amazing but there was one niggle; It looked like they had a line array setup and I think the sound was coming from it only because whenever the performance was happening, there was an audible hiss over the whole thing; I asked my girlfriend (as my ears are always ringing I wasn't sure if it was just me) but she said she could hear it too.
I wasn't very impressed by that. When I learnt to forget about it I had a great time.
It was really good to see a grand piano played so well.
Hi Chris,
I don't entirely disagree with him Marco.
It rather depends on context doesn't it? If I were at a Motorhead gig & the sound of the hi-hat was coming from 10 feet to the left of the drum kit, I don't suppose anyone would care or notice. However, if I was at a string quartet recital & the cellist appeared (aurally) to be playing the violin I'd be less impressed.
Indeed, but if you read again what Serge wrote, he was talking specifically about amplified gigs, not un-amplified classical concerts (I presume of the type such as the Motorhead gig you mentioned):
The amplified gigs I've been to have pretty much all been overloud, coloured and my particular irritation, that the audio image doesn't match the physical positions of the artists on stage.
Dunno about anyone else, but when I'm at a rock gig, I'm too busy gettin' into the groove of the band, and having the hairs stand up on the back of my neck with the sheer, trouser-flapping, physical intensity of the sound, taking in the vibe, to be worrying about the freakin' 'audio image not matching the physical positions of the artists on stage'... That's the last bloody thing on my mind!! :nono: :mental:
And if I'd made a comment like that to my mates, they'd have pished themselves laughing and told me to stop being a fucking pussy!! :lol:
Like I said, guys like Serge, live in a totally different world from me.
Marco.
No, it isn't. DB tests for audio are bad because you are usually listening to a foreign system in a foreign environment, with music that may be unfamiliar and with a strong expectation of hearing differences and getting results. This is nothing like listening to music in a relaxed and enjoyable manner.
See John Atkinson of Stereophile for many well-written articles on why DBT does not yield results.
Oh yes it is!:eyebrows::D
Ahem, I thought I had covered the dissenters like Atkinson with “pretty much”. ;)
I have read some of the arguments against DBT and while I accept that stress may have some impact, perhaps enough to mask small differences, a comparatively quick and possibly more enjoyable test of the efficacy of DBT for those who have an adventurous nature and a sense of humour is to get your girlfriend/boyfriend to strip you naked, tie you up and blindfold you, suspend you from a convenient gantry and randomly play a saxophone and a trumpet in your ear.
Have I been able to test this out myself and give my subjective view and test results? No,
Unfortunately I haven’t got past the who gets to be tied up bit and my girlfiend can’t play either instrument. :eyebrows:
I think this should adequately cover the required stress and strangeness concerns, particularly if you do this at a local building site where suitable gantries are more common.
The other rather important bit you seem to have missed in my post is the term test.
The very nature of tests would tend to suggest that relaxing and enjoyable may not be the qualities one should expect.
Unfortunately DBT does seem to yield results; just not the results John Atkinson finds acceptable. :)
I don’t know of any other tests that are sufficiently rigorous and fair that could be used for audio listening so I suggest that DBT IS the generally accepted standard by default.
Do I think that DBT for audio should be legislated for and all prospective buyers of equipment made to undergo them? No.
Do I even care which components people buy? No.
What I do care a bit about is the idea put forward on this forum and others that if you cant tell the difference between one component and another through listening you are deaf, daft, or both, or that there is some lack of quality in the componants you have and you need to go and spend a fortune on alternative components which from the DBT tests I have read about and from my own experience doesn’t seem to improve ones ability to pass the test.
So, to clarify further; If people hear a difference between one component and another in their own systems and feel driven to posts regarding the sonic improvements in their system because of said component, to quote from my clans gaming forum “I’m good with others lifes”. :D
What I find objectionable apart from that already mentioned is the misleading drivel written by the Hi Fi press regarding the sonic performance of the equipment they review.
(Welder, yer local friendly pet objecivists; apparently :scratch:)
The very nature of tests would tend to suggest that relaxing and enjoyable may not be the qualities one should expect.
I think this is where we disagree, John. Since listening to music is, or at least, should be, an enjoyable pasttime, I don't see how a test experience that is not comfortable is going to render useful results - for me, at least. Very often system changes creep up on me over a short time as I am relaxed and enjoying the listening. I don't want to be pressurised into hearing changes as my brain will then want to hear something, rather than alert me in a natural way. So for me, John Atkinson and I guess quite a few other audiophiles, DBTs are unnatural and not the best way to yield results.
Unfortunately for you, and I can see why you'd object, we are left with subjective comparative descriptions without any evidence to back up our findings.
Since listening to music is, or at least, should be, an enjoyable pasttime, I don't see how a test experience that is not comfortable is going to render useful results - for me, at least. Very often system changes creep up on me over a short time as I am relaxed and enjoying the listening. I don't want to be pressurised into hearing changes as my brain will then want to hear something, rather than alert me in a natural way.
Spot on, Martin, especially with the bit in bold. What a lot of objectivists don't seem to understand (perhaps struggle to understand, due to how their brains are 'wired'?) is that the listening process you describe, for assessing equipment, happens 'organically' and naturally in its own time. It is not a process that can be rushed or replicated crudely in an alien and controlled scientific test environment.
Until the latter (ABX testing) can mimic the same conditions as we (as subjectivists) analyse audio equipment, over a given period of time, in the comfort of our homes, then for me the process remains fundamentally flawed, and therefore largely invalid. We've been here before, John, where I've explained why I perform poorly in a stressful test environment, and there must be millions of others like me!
I think that here it's worth remembering why this forum is called 'The Art of Sound'... One of the fundamental reasons for that is that, as subjectivists, our assessment procedure in audio is largely an 'artistic' process, where our senses and gut reaction play the biggest part as an arbiter for what we hear, which is an anathema for most objectivists, particularly those of the diehard variety.
The problem is that most objectivists struggle to use the creative side of their brains, and so cannot relate to the same thought processes as those of us who are more 'in tune' with the way that this part of our mind works. Objectivists need everything formulated in 'black & white', in an absolutist way, which is why they relate better to very calculated and scientifically clinical processes, such as ABX testing.
Consider this: how many scientific minded people speak a foreign language fluently, where the 'artistic' side of the brain is required, or did well at art itself at school? Very few, in my experience; the same as those who excel at art and languages rarely also excel in science subjects. That's certainly the way it was at my school. It was always the 'language and arty people' vs. 'the maths and science geeks', and I was very much in the former camp!
The exact same also applies the other way round, as show me a graph or some 'numbers' (as objectivists like to call it), which relate to technical data, and I'm completely lost. My eyes just glaze over with sheer disinterest, and so such information is next to useless for me. No matter how hard I try, it just won't penetrate.
Conversely, ask an objectivist to describe what they're hearing when listening to audio equipment, without using technical language or referring to measurements, and most are unable to do so - again simply because they struggle to use the creative/artistic side of their brains, in a way that would come naturally and easily for, say, someone like me, and of course reading graphs or deciphering 'numbers' would come equally as easily and naturally for them.
That is the crux of the problem in these 'subjectivist vs. objectivist debates: how on earth will you ever get totally different people, whose brains are 'wired' in an entirely opposite way, to relate to and appreciate how the other person thinks?
Marco.
I think John's said something like this is in the past, to paraphrase "John doesn't feel emotion from recorded music". If I'm paraphrasing him correctly then he can only be analytical....and in quite a cold, dispassionate way.
Sorry John, that's not a dig but it's the impression I've rightly or wrongly gained over time. Is that fair or not?
Hi Clive,
I think John's said something like this is in the past, to paraphrase "John doesn't feel emotion from recorded music". If I'm paraphrasing him correctly then he can only be analytical....and in quite a cold, dispassionate way.
Indeed. If that's a fair analysis of how John's mind works, then I'm the COMPLETE opposite. I'm a warm, passionate, excitable, emotionally-driven creature, almost completely incapable of being cold and dispassionate, in not only the way I listen to music, but in how I live my life in general. I guess that it's partly an Italian thing... :eyebrows:
That's why I find 'cold fishes', like Serge, and other like-minded objectivists, so extremely difficult to relate to, and I guess that they feel the exact same about people like me!
I would also contend that listening to and appreciating music, reproduced by a hi-fi system, is much more of an artistic, emotionally-driven process, than a technical and dispassionate one, which I feel is coincidentally why, and I know that this will be considered as contentious, the hi-fi systems of subjectivists, in my experience, have always been more musically enjoyable to listen to, than those 'born from technical measurements', owned by diehard objectivists.
One of the main reasons for me wanting to conduct the test I've proposed at Scalford, is to find an example where the above is not the case. In that sense, I live in hope! ;)
Marco.
Until the latter (ABX testing) can mimic the same conditions as we (as subjectivists) analyse audio equipment, over a significant period of time, in the comfort of our homes, then for me the process remains fundamentally flawed, and therefore largely invalid.
And objectivists will say that any test that is not double-blind is invalid, because of expectation bias. I had an idea that maybe you could at least conceal the electronics, so that there would be no visual clues as to what components were being used, but it seems an awful faff.
We've been here before, John, where I've explained why I perform poorly in a stressful test environment, and there must be millions of others like me!
I'm fine in test situations as long as they don't involve having needles stuck into me.
Not a lot wrong with your memory Clive. :)
Dont worry about my feelings Clive, dig away mate. :(
I'm obviously a completely detatched and totally unemotional person; barely human in fact. :(
:lol:
Absolutley correct impression Clive although hopefully not taken to extreems.
There is an awful lot I would like to write in response to some of the posts and maybe later; when I'm taking a break from being creative working on my active setup ;) I will.
I just want to point out that what we are talking about here isn't really anything to do with music, or art, it's about whether or not there is an audible differnce between one piece of equipment and another. Marco is proposing a challenge, albeit in good humour I hope :eyebrows: which by his reasoning will put paid to all this all amplifiers sound the same bollocks.
This isn't about listening to music, or feeling warm and cuddly, or even much to do with art or ethos. It's a challenge, a test if you will and tests to be valid need stringent controls. Sitting a few Scaffold show goers who I suggest will probably be emapthetic to the Subjectivists view point without such controls proves bugger all.
I'm quite comfortable with the subjectivists view while they stick to "what I hear with my kit". However, when they creep into the area of science and technology then they should imo play by objective rules, especially if they are going to issue challenges and deride the objectivists.
Being arty and bohemian and sensitive is all well and good and in general I would suggest that such people dont issue challenges because some cold hearted calculating inhuman sod is likely to sit down, do the research, work out the odds and bring a cannon to a cat fight.:D
:sofa:
(I shouldn't have to point this out but i will never the less; the above is not meant to be offensive and as usual with my posts you need to engage your sense of humour when reading)
I'm a warm, passionate, excitable, emotionally-driven creature, almost completely incapable of being cold and dispassionate, in not only the way I listen to music, but in how I live my life in general. I guess that it's partly an Italian thing... :eyebrows:
That's why I find 'cold fishes', like Serge, and other like-minded objectivists, so extremely difficult to relate to, and I guess that they feel the exact same about people like me!
Marco.
My excitable, romantic Irish blood from my mother's side is balanced by dour Scottish blood on my father's side; fortunately there's a bit of Scouse comedy upbringing in there to take the mickey out of each.
Being arty and bohemian and sensitive is all well and good and in general I would suggest that such people dont issue challenges because some cold hearted calculating inhuman sod is likely to sit down, do the research, work out the odds and bring a cannon to a cat fight.:D
:sofa:
(I shouldn't have to point this out but i will never the less; the above is not meant to be offensive and as usual with my posts you need to engage your sense of humour when reading)
I have an entirely open mind about these things. My technical knowledge just about stretches to understanding how a wheelbarrow works, so I'm unlikely to be issuing any challenges.
Hi Joe,
And objectivists will say that any test that is not double-blind is invalid, because of expectation bias.
And they'd be partially right. However, I don't believe that expectation bias is always why we hear effects in audio, which currently can't be scientifically proven. It happens sometimes, yes, but it's not an automatic or conclusive explanation for the phenomenon.
Again, it's the absolutist mentality of objectivists that is the problem: they MUST have the existence of certainty (or their notion of it), or they'd go mad!
Subjectivists don't care about such things, as we have no innate craving for 'certainty'. We'll eventually just go with what our senses tell us, in the full understanding that they're not infallible, but ultimately knowing that they're the best thing that we've got.
IMO, it's called behaving like a normal human being, instead of a robot.
Also, as I said before:
How on earth will you ever get totally different people, whose brains are 'wired' in an entirely opposite way, to relate to and appreciate how the other person thinks?
Strip everything else away, and that's essentially what you're left with!
Marco.
I might add that I am trying to get my friend Stef to take up your challenge Marco.
He's done this before and he can afford to lose the kit in the event of losing.
Hi John,
Marco is proposing a challenge, albeit in good humour I hope...
Absolutely. The key will be to have fun, but there is also a serious point to it.
...which by his reasoning will put paid to all this all amplifiers sound the same bollocks.
Of course it won't "put paid" to it. Sadly, that will never happen. This will just be an informal little test to see, for curiosity, what happens.
However, if the majority of people listening to the two systems (and I'd expect the numbers, from past experience of the show, to be in the hundreds) consider that one system sounds notably better than the other, then it surely must send out some food for thought that, despite the equipment used in both systems being 'sonically transparent' (tested within reason for such beforehand), it does not actually translate as such in the real world?
The test won't be in any way definitive, but perhaps it might make some people stop and think...
Also, as I've said, the other reason for doing the test is to see if a poor deluded subjectivist, like me, prone to continually imagining things and living in cloud-cuckoo land, can learn anything from a more technically knowledgeable objectivist, in terms of improving the sonic performance of his system. In that respect, I'm all ears! ;)
Sitting a few Scaffold show goers who I suggest will probably be emapthetic to the Subjectivists view point without such controls proves bugger all.
Why? They won't be told in advance which system belongs to the subjectivist or objectivist - in fact, no clues will be given, as far as that matter is concerned. They'll simply be asked to judge the sound of both systems, playing the same music, and mark down which one they prefer.
Simples! :cool:
Marco.
I remember one time with a friend that tends to sit slightly on the objective view point but like Barry is what I call a pragmatic objectivist
At the time we were playing around with the system and the friend accidently just put the Whest phonostage directly into the mains rather than the PS Audio P500 I had at the time. Both of us were wondering what happened to sound, I thought the phonostage was playing up ( I did not know he made the changes). As soon we put the power back through the regenrator hey presto sound was back.
Going back to the debate I had with Rob I think thier just was no meeting point, he felt in my system no matter what I did their would be a expecation bias and I thought hey who really cares if takes me closer to emotional connection to the music then I am happy.
I am left wondering if there is really a meeting point between the two extreme views, we process so differently I want to connect emotionally to the music to feel its power and scale to have the hairs stand on my back, someone else might want something totally different which is equally valid.
Not a lot wrong with your memory Clive. :)
Dont worry about my feelings Clive, dig away mate. :(
I'm obviously a completely detatched and totally unemotional person; barely human in fact. :(
John, I'm pleased you didn't take it too heart....too much.....and I was only referring to your take on recorded music, no you as a human being!
I suppose I'm a subjectivist but I tend to initially filter equipment with some technical knowledge based on my preferences. So I'm in both camps but ultimately emotion from music is what drives me.
I might add that I am trying to get my friend Stef to take up your challenge Marco.
He's done this before and he can afford to lose the kit in the event of losing.
Lol... Nice one! Incidentally, he won't be losing any kit, as that's not in the equation.
A couple of things... Does your friend have all the required test apparatus to measure the equipment being used as technically 'sonically transparent' (indeed what exactly would one measure for?) and also whatever device is needed to level-match the volume of both systems?
I've never done that before, and it's crucial to the results of the test being in any way meaningful.
Also, would your friend's equipment work ok with Celestion 66 Studio Monitors? :cool:
Marco.
Yup, he's got all the kit Marco. I've got his ABX kit atm.
He will only play old school rules though Marco. Winner takes all.
:lolsign:
Let me know when you've confirmed that he's coming. We'll need a list of his kit, to put onto the spreadsheet for Scalford :)
Marco.
I'm working with him next week so I'll work on him while I'm there and if he goes for it, it will be down to you two to sort out the rules.
Cool. All you'll have to do is put me in touch with him :)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
17-07-2012, 17:34
Hi Chris,
Indeed, but if you read again what Serge wrote, he was talking specifically about amplified gigs, not un-amplified classical concerts
I took it to mean he was referring to amplified music of a non-rock nature.
I've been to jazz gigs where someone in the audience has yelled out "Shoot the sound man!" or words to that effect, and the whole audience has applauded in agreement. I've also been to 'classical' events where there has been amplified sound.
My excitable, romantic Irish blood from my mother's side is balanced by dour Scottish blood on my father's side; fortunately there's a bit of Scouse comedy upbringing in there to take the mickey out of each.
Excellent! :lol: :lol:
Marco.
I took it to mean he was referring to amplified music of a non-rock nature.
Perhaps, Chris, but either way, what he considers as being crucial during a live musical performance, couldn't be further from my mind! I don't even listen to hi-fi systems that way. Imaging qualities, although something my system does very well (mainly due to the behaviour of my speakers) is not something that really registers, unless someone, with who it does, makes an issue of it.
I'll be too busy concentrating on whether the system 'boogies like a bastard' and gets my feet tapping, much like I'll be with the sound of the band at a rock concert (listening to whether they're 'tight', musically), or when enjoying any music with a rhythmic beat. Any live gig I've been to like that has featured people groovin' to the sound of the music, dancing and having FUN, not sitting there, strait-laced, intellectualising the experience, as appears to be the case with Serge.
I'll be too busy 'in my zone', getting into the music, to give a damn, however 'technically imperfect' it sounds! ;)
I've been to jazz gigs where someone in the audience has yelled out "Shoot the sound man!"
Now that would be funny! :D
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
17-07-2012, 18:24
I've been to jazz gigs where someone in the audience has yelled out "Shoot the sound man!"
Now that would be funny!
Those very words were uttered at Charlie Watts Big Band, Brighton Dome 198....something!
Lol... Do you get where I'm coming from though, in my previous post? :)
People like Serge appear to be in permanent 'analytical mode', whether listening to live music or the sound reproduced by a hi-fi system. I could never be so continually 'uptight'!
Marco.
The goalposts are in continual motion. No two live performances are ever the same for a multitude of reasons; venue acoustics, equipment setup, the state of mind of the artist/s delivering the performance etc, etc. It is often suggested that audiophiles seek a sound that is as close to a live performance as it is possible to get. If this is the case then the relevant question should be, which live performance? It is an unachievable goal therefore all we can do is settle on a sound that satisfies our own personal expectations whilst deploying the best equipment each of us can afford. Those who seek to do this through exhaustive testing of esoteric parameters are surely missing the point?
The Grand Wazoo
17-07-2012, 19:43
I completely get where you're coming from Marco & as I said, it's a matter of context. At a rock gig, the entire space is energised just as it is with that orchestral crescendo of Martin's. In those situations, I wouldn't care a toss if the sound was coming from the chip shop next door.
I’ve read a fair bit if this emotional connection to the music and suspension of disbelieve stuff here and I am beginning to wonder if I do in fact live on a completely different planet. :)
Elsewhere on this forum I posted that the truth for me was/is my main interest in Hi Fi was/is the kit and I found it difficult to make an emotional connection with a recording, basically.
What reaction I got at the time was akin to wandering into a pub and announcing I had leprosy. :eek::D
Stereo sound reproduction for me is a hobby. Music falls into the art category and for it to be art imo it needs to be unique and alive in some way, live music achieves this. There just isn’t anything unique in mass distributed recordings, or I would argue any emotional exchange unless of course you believe emotions can be recorded and passed around.
So, here’s my more positive view of my position and a possible reason why you rather more emotional lot may not be the best judge of what is and what isn’t good audio.
Note I’ve used the term good and not emotionally pleasing.
Good audio, and it seems even most subjectivists agree with this, is equipment that faithfully reproduces the source. No, I like this, or that is more musical; faithful reproduction of the source is the goal if people are going to talk about transparency, accuracy, revealing etc.
Suspension of disbelief.
I find this difficult. I used to watch people watching TV and be shocked at the level of concentration they apparently needed to follow what were really simple plots, often not particularly well acted which they must surely realize are fabricated scenes stitched together. This it seems is adequate for many people and they get emotionally deceived basically and it ime it often takes considerable effort to get them to concentrate on something else while the show is on; they do it seems get an emotional fix from this deception.
There are very few films that elicit a notable emotional response from me. There are exceptions, but they are generally acknowledged to be exceptional movies where the art of deceiving is extremely well done.
I know enough from visits to studios and the knowledge I’ve acquired regarding the recording process that the vast majority of recordings are nothing like what went on in the studios; often those recorded are not even in the same place at the same time. I know that what I hear through my stereo is a construction, an engineering trick if you like.
I might argue that this degree of detachment and unwillingness to be fooled by what gets presented to one as fact is a desirable quality. ;)
So this is my suggestion.
If you are so fooled by engineering to the point that it engages your emotions to the point that your grasp of reality is suspended, albeit in a pleasant way then perhaps subjectivists should accept this and come to terms with the idea that what they are experiencing is only relevant to them, at that moment, and isn’t real for anyone else and should therefore leave the technical stuff such as audio performance to those less susceptible to being deceived.
This would also go some way in explaining the vastly differing assessments of various pieces of equipment. Good judgment is not well made under emotional stress; (an argument put forward by those against DBT). If the listener is so transported by the recording that their emotions run riot one can hardly expect a rational and balanced account of something as mundane as equipment performance.
None of the above makes the subjectivists wrong, just possibly less suited to assessing performance in an accurate manner which I would argue takes a degree of objectivity. When you are in love that women is completely gorgeous but the truth may well be something rather different. :eyebrows:
I would also add that my apparent detachment from my emotions when listening to recordings doesn’t in any way mean I enjoy the pastime any less than the subjectivists so no one need feel sorry for me. :)
I listen to an awful lot of recorded music (more than most here I would guess not being a TV watcher and single) but I’m fully aware of what it is I’m listening to.
The goalposts are in continual motion. No two live performances are ever the same for a multitude of reasons; venue acoustics, equipment setup, the state of mind of the artist/s delivering the performance etc, etc. It is often suggested that audiophiles seek a sound that is as close to a live performance as it is possible to get. If this is the case then the relevant question should be, which live performance? It is an unachievable goal therefore all we can do is settle on a sound that satisfies our own personal expectations whilst deploying the best equipment each of us can afford. Those who seek to do this through exhaustive testing of esoteric parameters are surely missing the point?
The enjoyment of music, rather than getting a 'stiffy' over readouts on an oscilloscope? ;)
Marco.
jandl100
17-07-2012, 20:01
I would also add that my apparent detachment from my emotions when listening to recordings doesn’t in any way mean I enjoy the pastime any less than the subjectivists so no one need feel sorry for me. :)
An interesting statement.
How can you possibly know that?
Enjoyment is a purely subjective thing.
Do you see a picture or a landscape as being more enjoyable than I do? There's no way to tell!
You seem to think that emotional detachment is a desirable quality - I doubt that you will find many who agree with you. No one is being fooled by anything, such a term suggests that an intentional dishonesty is taking place - obviously this is not the case. If someone feels emotionally connected to a film, or a piece of music, they are not being 'fooled'.
Just because you find it difficult (perhaps imposable) to suspend disbelief or empathise with emotion engendered by a piece of music, does not mean that such qualities do not exist in others; indeed, many composers would say that to view music merely as an abstract construct would be to entirely miss the point....
You seem to think that emotional detachment is a desirable quality - I doubt that you will find many who agree with you. No one is being fooled by anything, such a term suggests that an intentional dishonesty is taking place - obviously this is not the case. If someone feels emotionally connected to a film, or a piece of music, they are not being 'fooled'.
Just because you find it difficult (perhaps imposable) to suspend disbelief or empathise with emotion engendered by a piece of music, does not mean that such qualities do not exist in others; indeed, many composers would say that to view music merely as an abstract construct would be to entirely miss the point....
Nope, that's not what I wrote or meant.
I was suggesting that emotional detachment is desirable when trying to assess performance.
From John's (rather psychologically revealing, IMO) last post, there seems to be the premise that showing or embracing one's emotions is a sign of weakness.
Well, if that's the case, I'm as weak as a puppy! The right film or piece of music, if it presses certain buttons, will move me to tears, and I'm not embarrassed to say that in the slightest.
The irony is, that those who know me will be doubled-up with laughter at the thought of me being portrayed as a weak little puppy! Oh and as a point of note too, for you single folks, women LOVE guys who aren't afraid to show their emotions - trust me...!! :eyebrows:
Try it, for a change, instead of the macho routine ;)
No, showing or embracing one's emotions is not a sign of weakness; in fact it's quite the opposite. The other thing, John, is you've completely missed the point. In order to help you 'get' it, perhaps you could answer this question:
Forget about hi-fi systems, is listening to ANY live performance of music EVER an emotive experience for you?
Once I know the answer to that, I'll explain where you've missed the point :)
Marco.
From John's (rather psychologically revealing, IMO) last post, there seems to be the premise that showing or embracing one's emotions is a sign of weakness.
Well, if that's the case, I'm as weak as a puppy! The right film or piece of music, if it presses certain buttons, will move me to tears, and I'm not embarrassed to say that in the slightest.
The irony is, that those who know me will be doubled-up with laughter at the thought of me being portrayed as a weak little puppy! Oh and as a point of note too, for you single folks, women LOVE guys who aren't afraid to show their emotions - trust me...!! :eyebrows:
Try it, for a change, instead of the macho routine ;)
No, showing or embracing one's emotions is not a sign of weakness; in fact it's quite the opposite. The other thing, John, is you've completely missed the point. In order to help you 'get' it, perhaps you could answer this question:
Forget about hi-fi systems, is listening to ANY live performance of music EVER an emotive experience for you?
Once I know the answer to that, I'll explain where you've missed the point :)
Marco.
I can’t be arsed to sort out the multi quote stuff Marco but I know you’ll follow this no probs. :)
Nooooo, not at all Marco. That’s an emotional response to some imagined threat to your masculinity. :ner::D
I’m far from unemotional although to be fair I’m probably biased to the rational side.
Ah, now live music is entirely different. I mean, how could you ask given the amount I’ve gone on about dancing? :eek:
I can get very emotional at live performances and very emotional with real people.
I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this stuff if I was completely devoid of emotion because I just wouldn’t give a fuck now would I?
There is an interesting question that got brought up in philosophical debates around the time that future bio based replicas of people seemed possible.
Would you fall in love with a replica of your partner?
I would like to believe there is some “special”, perhaps emotion based shared feeling between people that just cant exist between and manufactured medium.
Ooops, that's way too faith based for any self respecting objectivist:eyebrows:
Ok, let's tackle this a bit at a time...
Ah, now live music is entirely different. I mean, how could you ask given the amount I’ve gone on about dancing? :eek:
That's cool. Ok, do you ever dance to the sound of music played on your system?
Marco.
Have to say I'm at a loss for what's being said here.
. . . me too
Never mind that (all will be revealed soon), can I restore the (excellent) post you deleted? ;)
I was just about to quote it, and you rubbed it out! :eyebrows:
Maarco.
Ok, let's tackle this a bit at a time...
That's cool. Ok, do you ever dance to the sound of music played on your system?
Marco.
Not really Marco. I tap my feet etc, but dance, no.
(Can we bear in mind the point I was trying to make about subjectivists possibley not being the ideal to assess performance because of emotional involvement as we go along please Marco) ;)
Mr Kipling
17-07-2012, 21:24
WORLD-FAMOUS composer Jerry Goldsmith used to compose his music from an 'emotional standpoint'.
Have to say I'm at a loss for what's being said here.
Not really Marco. I tap my feet etc, but dance, no.
I think you're a wee fibber, as I'm sure I've seen you write here that you were dancing to music played on your system. Perhaps I should have a proper look? ;)
The point is, even if you're just tapping your feet to the music, it's still an emotional reaction! Therefore, the fact is you've experienced an emotive connection/reaction with the recorded music you've listened to, via your hi-fi system, which you denied when I asked the question before.
Will you now admit that?
(Can we bear in mind the point I was trying to make about subjectivists possibley not being the ideal to assess performance because of emotional involvement as we go along please Marco)
Yup, sure, once I've had an answer to the above :)
Marco.
Rats, been caught out! :doh:
Okay, I dance a bit..............not very much mind :eyebrows:
(It's going to get very difficult to be the appointed objecitivist here if people are going to start engaging their brains and actually read what i write and remember it :doh: ):D
So, you're not emotionally detached from the music played on your hi-fi system, like you first said? :)
Marco.
(It's going to get very difficult to be the appointed objecitivist here if people are going to start engaging their brains and actually read what i write and remember it :doh: ):D
Indeed... Lol. You should remember that I've been debating on forums for years, so I know how to catch people out. Furthermore, I'm blessed with a retentive memory! ;)
Marco.
I'm blessed with a retentive memory! ;)
Analy... that is! :eyebrows:
Erm, okay, I exagerated a little bit...............but thats allowed here for the subjectivists so I'm good with it. ;)
Analy... that is! :eyebrows:
:lolsign: :D
Marco.
Ok, John, you wrote before:
Can we bear in mind the point I was trying to make about subjectivists possibley not being the ideal to assess performance because of emotional involvement.
So, now we've established that you're capable of experiencing the same emotional involvement with recorded music as subjectivists are, what makes you more qualified than us to assess the sonic performance of the associated equipment? :)
Marco.
I certainly didn’t suggest that I should be the one to competently assess the performance of stereo equipment. I suggested that perhaps 'objectivists' may might make a more suitable unbiased testers.
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has read what I’ve written here that I am not an objectivist. Sure, I’m slightly amused by playing devils advocate and to be fair, I haven’t made much of a fuss at being labeled one here and elsewhere; whatever keeps the contributors amused, shocked and responsive. ;)
Forums it seems thrive on conflict and only survive if people contribute. I’m quite fond of AoS so I participate, albeit with a wry grin on my face.
So, to answer your question Marco, I have put forward some rather loosely reasoned explanations as to why I think those who get labeled as objecitivists may make for better judges as to what equipment performs best in my earlier posts which of course must be taken with a good measure of humour. If you want further clarification I can only suggest you ask true objectivists if such a person exists. :)
(sry bout the long wait for a reply. Dancing round the room. Neighbours on holiday! Yay)
Lol... I hope you didn't rip your tutu, dahling! We shall continue the discussion tomorrow :eyebrows:
:goodnight:
Marco.
Work for me am but sure later. Sleep well.
Surely this 'emotional engagement' stuff is a red herring? Music heard on a cheap transistor radio can make you tap your feet, dance round the room, have the hairs on the back of your neck, etc.
Paying minute attention to the type of cables, supports, bearings in your system does, on the other hand, seem rather, well, 'analytical'.
Mr Kipling
18-07-2012, 07:11
The thing that has always surprised me is when I've heard something for the first time and it has appealed to me, what I hear it on doesn't seem to matter. Most of the music I have discovered has been with either the radio or tv.
Surely this 'emotional engagement' stuff is a red herring? Music heard on a cheap transistor radio can make you tap your feet, dance round the room, have the hairs on the back of your neck, etc.
I agree, but surely you're not saying that listening to the same music on your main hi-fi system doesn't do that more (by increasing that effect)? It certainly does with me! :)
Good hi-fi is all about revealing MORE of the music on recordings (increased information retrieval), which in turn enhances one's emotional connection with the music itself. There's no 'magic' involved!
It stands to reason that if you're able to obtain more of something in a good sense, then you'll enjoy that something MORE.
Why else is the experience of watching a movie on a big screen, in high definition, more enjoyable than watching the same movie on an old portable TV, or having your favourite dish cooked by a master chef, using the exact same ingredients as you would, but where the end result is so much better than you could've hoped to achieve?
How do you 'measure' that??
It's all about getting more out of the same thing, but in a way which only the use of the best equipment (constructed from the finest 'ingredients'), and experience can achieve. That's what the relationship between music, high-fidelity audio equipment, and 'audiophiles' is all about - or should be about.
However, not all systems are equal or are capable of resolving the necessary subtle information, embedded in recordings, required in order to engender, in the listener, the highest emotional connection/response with the music that the system reproduces.
*That*, muchachos, is the reserve of only the very best systems, able to 'expose' musical information on recordings that most other systems miss, and that effect can't be measured for!
John (Welder), you should think carefully about the above and consider why the systems owned by diehard objectivists (built from 'numbers' alone - that's your clue!) are unlikely capable of the required musical resolution, which is what I was getting at yesterday, when I was referring to you missing the point ;)
It's certainly confirmed by my experience to date of listening to the systems of diehard objectivists, which to my ears, have all sounded shit....!
Paying minute attention to the type of cables, supports, bearings in your system does, on the other hand, seem rather, well, 'analytical'.
That's really just a case of 'dotting the i's and crossing the t's', as it were. The trick is not to get analytical about it, and simply choose something that works and stick with it. I've been using the same supports, and largely the same cables, for years!
Marco.
Joe, what follows is my own experience and not necessarily followed by anyone else, but for me, when listing to familiar music, the playback gear is totally irrelevant, 'cos my brain makes up the missing bits as I understand them to be. When listening to NEW music though, I find I NEED a decent playback system (doesn't have to be an expensive one either) to be able to hear and understand what's going on in the mix.
The definition of "decent playback system" does change over the years though - and if MikeMusic is reading this, I think he could take note of the following...
My thirteen year old son has recently "discovered" the music of Queen (Mum's influence here, although I like much of what they've done). I dug out my vinyl copy of "The Works" which I hadn't played in many years. I have a "double Stirling" original vinyl pressing and when I bought it, I had the Naim 32/Hicap/250 and 'Briks setup (1983 vintage). This system made mincemeat of the LP tracks, coping rather better on the 12" singles of a few tracks I have. The LP sounded a bit wishy-washy on the aforementioned system and the LP was put back in the rack and largely forgotten. Playing it yesterday on the even older system I now use, I was struck by the layering and spacial aspects of the mixes which the 'Briks and Naim amps, let alone the fruitbox LP spinner just couldn't even begin to reproduce properly. Rather than Freddie being muffled in the background, he'd been mixed back with surrounding reverb giving him a (artificial but convincing) definite place in the soundfield, the whole effect being very convincing, if not quite the same as the video sound mixes one sees all the time on the telly music channels. Radio Gaga being the one exception that seems to sound great on everything, more or less, ESPECIALLY on the original 12" mix...
Does the above make sense? For me now, what I miss in absolute scale on the old stereo's I've owned, I seem to make up for in atmosphere, spacial clues, natural timbre and fundamental clarity this old but rejuvenated system shouldn't really have. I'm hearing records I dismissed in the 80's as if for the first time and also, I suppose the huge life-changes I've experienced since those times have given a new appreciation to the various music(s) too :)
The thing that has always surprised me is when I've heard something for the first time and it has appealed to me, what I hear it on doesn't seem to matter. Most of the music I have discovered has been with either the radio or tv.
Yup, Stephen. I think we're pretty much all the same, in that respect. It's one of the reasons why I have the radio on in the car all of the time. Countless times that has resulted in me buying the album of the artist in question, who has caught my interest.
However, when I've bought the CD of said music and played it in the car, as much as I enjoyed listening to it there, the experience wasn't anything like as enjoyable, as when I play the same CD at home on my main system. If you don't get that extra 'hit' from listening to music on a hi-fi system, which has cost you thousands of pounds, then it's either crap or you're wasting your time owning it, and would be as well using a £30 boom-box from Tesco! ;)
Marco.
For me now, what I miss in absolute scale on the old stereo's I've owned, I seem to make up for in atmosphere, spacial clues, natural timbre and fundamental clarity...
Absolutely, Dave.
The latter you describe is what high-fidelity sound is all about, the likes of which one simply will not hear with music emitting from a low-fidelity transistor radio, as much as the listening experience, if the music is right, can still move us emotionally.
As they say, the devil is in the detail! :)
Marco.
To John (Welder), in reference to our on-going discussion...
Just to clarify, you wrote yesterday:
Can we bear in mind the point I was trying to make about subjectivists possibley not being the ideal to assess performance because of emotional involvement.
Well, if you've read what I've written above in my previous posts, then in my opinion, the answer is no.
This is simply because subjective evidence suggests that the majority of diehard objectivists aren't likely to own systems with the required musical resolution, in order to assess equipment performance (if we're talking here about it in relation to the ability of the equipment to engender, in the listener, the highest emotional connection/response with the music that said equipment reproduces), for reasons previously given.
Furthermore, how many other 'objectivists' do you think exist who try to deny any emotional connection with recorded music, as you did yesterday, in order to appear as 'rational'?
Therefore, can their claimed 'emotional detachment' from the process be trusted anymore than the opposite claim from a subjectivist, when it's suggested that they're able to assemble more 'musically involving' hi-fi systems? ;)
Whose knowledge or abilities is therefore the more 'definitive'?
Marco.
I'm not going to pay any attention to the views of someone who doesn't feel emotional about recorded music. That person simply would not have any idea about my measures of what a good sound is.
I agree, but surely you're not saying that listening to the same music on your main hi-fi system doesn't do that more (by increasing that effect)? It certainly does with me! :)
Good hi-fi is all about revealing MORE of the music on recordings (increased information retrieval), which in turn enhances one's emotional connection with the music itself. There's no 'magic' involved!
It stands to reason that if you're able to obtain more of something in a good sense, then you'll enjoy that something MORE.
Why else is the experience of watching a movie on a big screen, in high definition, more enjoyable than watching the same movie on an old portable TV, or having your favourite dish cooked by a master chef, using the exact same ingredients as you would, but where the end result is so much better than you could've hoped to achieve?
How do you 'measure' that??
It's all about getting more out of the same thing, but in a way which only the use of the best equipment (constructed from the finest 'ingredients'), and experience can achieve. That's what the relationship between music, high-fidelity audio equipment, and 'audiophiles' is all about - or should be about.
However, not all systems are equal or are capable of resolving the necessary (subtle) information, embedded in recordings, required in order to engender, in the listener, the highest emotional connection/response with the music that the system reproduces.
*That*, muchachos, is the reserve of only the very best systems, able to 'expose' musical information on recordings that most other systems miss, and that effect can't be measured for!
John (Welder), you should think carefully about the above and consider why the systems owned by diehard objectivists (built from 'numbers' alone - that's your clue!) are unlikely capable of the required musical resolution, which is what I was getting at yesterday, when I was referring to you missing the point ;)
It's certainly confirmed by my experience to date of listening to the systems of diehard objectivists, which to my ears, have all sounded shit....!
That's really just a case of 'dotting the i's and crossing the t's', as it were. The trick is not to get analytical about it, and simply choose something that works and stick with it. I've been using the same supports, and largely the same cables, for years!
Marco.
I always try to think carefully if I have to think at all when replying Marco. :)
This bit doesn’t require much thinking.
There is no correlation between reproduction quality and emotional connection to the recording. In fact, as shown here, others who I will assume are primarily subjectivists disagree with you.
If there is any merit to your argument then it is difficult to see how music survived without Hi Fi because taking your argument to an extreme music wouldn’t have survived the lower quality reproduction of the lower fidelity mediums used by the majority of those who listen to music.
Okay, I realize you are arguing about degrees of pleasure and for you obviously more is better. It all gets a bit tricky after this because the information on the medium is finite and I’ll assume the objectivist would argue that his/her system retrieves all that is there and if you are getting something more then it isn’t stuff that should be there in the first place. :scratch:
If however you were to argue that there is a higher level of emotional connection between a live performance and the observer I might agree with you. :)
By your own admission there are particular aspects of your replay system that make you feel more connected to the music, the medium for example, a file doesn’t have the same emotional kick as handling a record, reading the album sleeve, the knowledge that you’ve invested your money in custom made equipment etc etc.
Virtually none of that peripheral stuff that you seem to need to enjoy music makes much difference to me.
I think you may just have an emotional connection with what you perceive as quality Marco. ;)
I feel sorry for anyone who's sole enjoyment of music is derived from a technical standpoint, you are missing out on so much. I can appreciate the technical artistry of the musicians, sound engineer or even the equipment but all this pales into insignificance when the music engages me on an emotional level. I have an emotional attachment to every album I own and I am certain that I will develop the same for a few I've yet to hear and long may that continue. This music can drive me through a gamut of emotions from laughter to tears and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I derive pleasure from music/systems/rooms with a good soundstage and imaging. These factors are not necessary or sufficient on their own but how would they be measured? Indeed would an objectivist totally ignore these aspects anyway?
I'm not going to pay any attention to the views of someone who doesn't feel emotional about recorded music. That person simply would not have any idea about my measures of what a good sound is.
I definitely feel emotional about recorded music.:D
What I don’t feel is the same emotional connection to recorded music that I do to live music.
There is a difference. :)
So, just out of interest Clive, if creating a clone of your partner was possible and it was pretty much identical in every respect, would you feel the same for it as you do for your partner?
I feel sorry for anyone who's sole enjoyment of music is derived from a technical standpoint, you are missing out on so much. I can appreciate the technical artistry of the musicians, sound engineer or even the equipment but all this pales into insignificance when the music engages me on an emotional level. I have an emotional attachment to every album I own and I am certain that I will develop the same for a few I've yet to hear and long may that continue. This music can drive me through a gamut of emotions from laughter to tears and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Don't waste your sympathy. ;)
Try reading Godel Escher and Bach and any other works that deal with the correlation between music and mathamatics.
I definitely feel emotional about recorded music.:D
What I don’t feel is the same emotional connection to recorded music that I do to live music.
There is a difference. :)
So, just out of interest Clive, if creating a clone of your partner was possible and it was pretty much identical in every respect, would you feel the same for it as you do for your partner?
By pretty much identical do you mean identical or not? If not identical I could expect to feel emotion though not the same emotion as the original. It might be better or worse. Feeling emotion isn't something you can or should measure. Feeling differing emotions is a great thing. If you felt the same all the time it would be boring.
Given a good mood I might derive greater emotion from recorded music on given night than I might if in a bad mood listening to live music. Don't try to measure everything or even feel the need to play devil's advocate!
By pretty much identical do you mean identical or not? If not identical I could expect to feel emotion though not the same emotion as the original. It might be better or worse. Feeling emotion isn't something you can or should measure. Feeling differing emotions is a great thing. If you felt the same all the time it would be boring.
Given a good mood I might derive greater emotion from recorded music on given night than I might if in a bad mood listening to live music. Don't try to measure everything or even feel the need to play devil's advocate!
I mean identical in every respect that can be measured either by eye, touch, hearing, smell, or by the any equipment currently available.
Don’t tell me what to do, or feel! I get enough of that from Marco.:lol::lol:
We don't know how to measure everything so the clone won't be identical.
Consider this: how many scientific minded people speak a foreign language fluently, where the 'artistic' side of the brain is required, or did well at art itself at school?
I am extremely crap at learning languages (although I enjoy the study of language and take pride in my English) and I am useless at creative art. So I guess I'm a scientific dude who is a subjectivist when it comes to appreciating music. Saying that, I enjoy the science behind reproduction.
No nice pigeon-holes, I'm afraid ;)
The Grand Wazoo
18-07-2012, 15:01
Indeed - apart from sorting mail, pigeon holes are usually best left for the pigeons.
I am extremely crap at learning languages (although I enjoy the study of language and take pride in my English) and I am useless at creative art. So I guess I'm a scientific dude who is a subjectivist when it comes to appreciating music. Saying that, I enjoy the science behind reproduction.
No nice pigeon-holes, I'm afraid ;)
Indeed, although pigeonholing wasn't my intention :)
However, your admission that you're crap at learning languages, as a self-confessed 'maths and science geek', kind of confirms my point regarding the use of different sides of the brain, even though you're a subjectivist, when it comes to audio.
In terms of the latter, given your background, it could've so easily been the other way round... It's to your credit that you're open-minded enough to look at the bigger picture and trust your senses (within reason); a skill which is unfortunately lacking in the majority of objectivists.
However, I think that if you were to examine the educational background of most diehard objectivists, and indeed where their current skill sets lie, you'd find that they'd be biased more towards maths and science, than languages, as will their ability to use the analytical side of their brains, more than their creative side, and of course, in terms of the latter, it's generally the opposite for most subjectivists.
Like I said before, it's the inability of each 'side' to understand or empathise with how the brains of the other side are 'wired', together with their respective thought procesess, which is at the root of these circular 'objectivist vs. subjectivst' debates.
Marco.
P.S John, I'll get to your replies later, as I need to pop out. Unfortunately, you're missing the point again.
Joe, what follows is my own experience and not necessarily followed by anyone else, but for me, when listing to familiar music, the playback gear is totally irrelevant, 'cos my brain makes up the missing bits as I understand them to be. When listening to NEW music though, I find I NEED a decent playback system (doesn't have to be an expensive one either) to be able to hear and understand what's going on in the mix.
The definition of "decent playback system" does change over the years though - and if MikeMusic is reading this, I think he could take note of the following...
My thirteen year old son has recently "discovered" the music of Queen (Mum's influence here, although I like much of what they've done). I dug out my vinyl copy of "The Works" which I hadn't played in many years. I have a "double Stirling" original vinyl pressing and when I bought it, I had the Naim 32/Hicap/250 and 'Briks setup (1983 vintage). This system made mincemeat of the LP tracks, coping rather better on the 12" singles of a few tracks I have. The LP sounded a bit wishy-washy on the aforementioned system and the LP was put back in the rack and largely forgotten. Playing it yesterday on the even older system I now use, I was struck by the layering and spacial aspects of the mixes which the 'Briks and Naim amps, let alone the fruitbox LP spinner just couldn't even begin to reproduce properly. Rather than Freddie being muffled in the background, he'd been mixed back with surrounding reverb giving him a (artificial but convincing) definite place in the soundfield, the whole effect being very convincing, if not quite the same as the video sound mixes one sees all the time on the telly music channels. Radio Gaga being the one exception that seems to sound great on everything, more or less, ESPECIALLY on the original 12" mix...
Does the above make sense? For me now, what I miss in absolute scale on the old stereo's I've owned, I seem to make up for in atmosphere, spacial clues, natural timbre and fundamental clarity this old but rejuvenated system shouldn't really have. I'm hearing records I dismissed in the 80's as if for the first time and also, I suppose the huge life-changes I've experienced since those times have given a new appreciation to the various music(s) too :)
Oh, very much so, and it more or less reflects my own experiences with music(apart from Queen, whose recordings I can do without).
But I still think the 'emotional engagement' thing is a red herring; I doubt I'll ever be as emotionally engaged with music as I was in my teens/early twenties, in the same way that I'm not as emotionally engaged with, say, poetry as I was in my teens. The range of music that engages me has increased, as has the range of literature I can appreciate, though it's partly on an intellectual level that just wasn't there in my adolescence.
I can 'get' what Welder is on about, though. Take drama. A 'live' play will be more 'real' than a film, assuming the acting and production to be of similar quality. Film can do things live acting can't, but it places a layer of artificiality between performers and audience. In the same way, live music is more 'real' than even the best recorded music, so suspension of disbelief, and direct emotional engagement, is easier.
flatpopely
18-07-2012, 18:54
It's 1986, The Alan Parsons Project 'Turn of a friendy card' is newly installed on my Thorens TD150. I don't do anything for two days other than listen to this record through my system, that I guess measures crap. At no point do I stop enjoying things and think, hmmm that treble ain't that good I bet it doesn't measure well either.
It's been the same ever since and I'm glad I love music to a point it transcends the banal and cold measurement philosophy.
We lose the love of music and the emotions it gives to our peril!
I agree, but surely you're not saying that listening to the same music on your main hi-fi system doesn't do that more (by increasing that effect)? It certainly does with me! :)
Up to a point, but will I be as freaked out as I was when first hearing, say 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or 'Voodoo Chile (Slight Return)' or 'The Bewlay Brothers'? I doubt it; the element of surprise and novelty won't be there, and those recordings didn't need the help of expensive equipment to blow my mind.
Don't waste your sympathy. ;)
Try reading Godel Escher and Bach and any other works that deal with the correlation between music and mathamatics.
I keep meaning to read that. but the Irish Christian Brothers have inexorably linked mathematics and fear & loathing so I can't see an equation without reaching for my revolver.
Up to a point, but will I be as freaked out as I was when first hearing, say 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or 'Voodoo Chile (Slight Return)' or 'The Bewlay Brothers'? I doubt it; the element of surprise and novelty won't be there, and those recordings didn't need the help of expensive equipment to blow my mind.
Sure, Joe, but you get my point :)
However, I think that much of what you're relating to is the brilliance of the music itself, some of which you've quoted was ground-breaking, that let's face it, today's music rarely, if ever, emulates, rather than anything to do with the replay equipment itself. I'm younger than you, so never had that mind-blowing experience with any of the music I was growing up with in the 80s!
Don't kid yourself too, that nostalgia isn't also playing a big part in how you feel, which effectively means that no music reproduced by a hi-fi system will ever "blow your mind", in quite the same way, as it did when you heard it on the radio, as a child... However, the best systems should always reveal more of what's actually on recordings, than equipment which has lower fidelity, such as a transistor radio.
The former will always remove more, to quote the phrase you used: 'layers of artificiality' between what's on the recording that left the studio, and the listener.
Just imagine how mint original vinyl pressings (or the original master tapes) of the best music from The Beatles or Hendrix would sound through a hi-fi system most able to faithfully reveal the emotion and intensity of that wonderful music! :cool:
Marco.
Hi Andrew,
Great to see you here - you should join Mark and visit more often! :)
It's 1986, The Alan Parsons Project 'Turn of a friendy card' is newly installed on my Thorens TD150. I don't do anything for two days other than listen to this record through my system, that I guess measures crap. At no point do I stop enjoying things and think, hmmm that treble ain't that good I bet it doesn't measure well either.
It's been the same ever since and I'm glad I love music to a point it transcends the banal and cold measurement philosophy.
We lose the love of music and the emotions it gives to our peril!
Exactly, but sadly some people will just never 'get' that! :rolleyes:
How are you getting on with Serge, over on pfm? He's, erm, quite a 'character', isn't he? ;)
Marco.
The Beatles stuff WAS released exactly as the masters were, according to George Martin at any rate, and the audiophile listeners panned them mercilessly, especially the first four albums on CD, which came out first. The current remasters may well sound "better" in a modern context, but they've been tweaked to hell and back, albeit with very much love and care IMO...
Hendrix was also properly remastered a few years ago and again, I bet the sonics are actually better than the original masters now, or at least as close as makes no difference. The "digital" bit is the very least of the so called "problems" with reproducing these old recordings. A properly "raw" transfer may well have clicks, distortion on peaks, hiss galore and all sorts of other nasties. Listening very carefully to the innards of these tracks and gently sorting them can, if done with love for the original music, transform the experience, in the same way that good record cuts do for the vinyl medium - all discussed clumsily in my case many many times... I have a sneaky feeling that "the" Thomas Dolby album in remastered form would sound amazing into Yamaha NS10's. Had the engineer used big monitors, the bass lift wouldn't have happened so viciously. In the same way, the 12" version of Dissidents later on this CD lacks the bass boost but I bet it sounds sublime into 801's or other big old monitors..
It would be interesting Marco, to take your CD player into one of the remaining big recording studios or mastering rooms and actually compare a production CD played on your player, with the digital master file as played through your DAC and a typical "pro" one and if this came from an analogue master, the original tape. See, you have mastering grade monitors at home which are probably better than the original Lockwoods were. Only the room is the bottleneck if truth be told, and it appears you've done work on that in any case, although a bigger room may let 'em "breathe" a bit more perhaps?????
There is a thriving business "making analogue" a modern digial album and/or single, mastering the digital file to analogue tape for mastering to vinyl
Speaking of being open minded and looking at the bigger picture………..;)
I get the impression Marco that your self confessed lack of interest in the technical side of audio reproduction and your obvious disdain for anything remotely objective has meant that you’ve not attempted a blind listening test, or an ABX test (?)
I say this because of your earlier enquiry regarding how to set such a test up.
More information can be found written by this very reasonable and open minded chap here. :)
http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm
If I was going to issue the type of very public and open challenge to those you’ve described as objectivists (prolly best not to cover all the other insults you’ve thrown at them ;)) then I would consider it prudent to at least have some idea of what I would be up against should such a challenge be taken up.
The first time I tried anything like this (It was just a blind listening session comparing music fed from a laptop and music from my friends server) was in a very relaxed and pressure free (nobody had anything to prove) environment with no stake as such.
I was completely shocked by just how difficult it was to hear any differences. :eek:
Come to think of it, I believe you still have a Windows based music server.
You could download foobar 2000
http://www.foobar2000.org/download
and their ABX dll
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
here’s a bit of a vid on using it that may be useful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt7GyFW4hOI
Considering the amount of information there is on the internet about just how hard it is to get positive results from either ABX or Blind Testing it should be fairly obvious that the odds are stacked heavily against you. Any challenger is going to insist on some or all of the test conditions.
Have a go yourself Marco. It is actually rather educational and for me at least a bit of fun.
I keep meaning to read that. but the Irish Christian Brothers have inexorably linked mathematics and fear & loathing so I can't see an equation without reaching for my revolver.
:lol:
It is pretty hard going in places and to fully apreciate the connections you need to be able to at least follow the math.
Well worth the effort imo given how some would argue that music composition is done with the same brain area that processes complex math.
I rarely read all the gubbins in people's signatures but I see you and I are using the exact same amplification!
:lol:
Well worth the effort imo given how some would argue that music composition is done with the same brain area that processes complex math.
Isn't the current belch of "R&B" pap released these days on a production line "composed" on a computer? I bet the input from the "musician" is extremely low...
Hi Dave,
It would be interesting Marco, to take your CD player into one of the remaining big recording studios or mastering rooms and actually compare a production CD played on your player, with the digital master file as played through your DAC and a typical "pro" one and if this came from an analogue master, the original tape. See, you have mastering grade monitors at home which are probably better than the original Lockwoods were. Only the room is the bottleneck if truth be told, and it appears you've done work on that in any case, although a bigger room may let 'em "breathe" a bit more perhaps?????
Regarding the latter, sure, nothing is perfect. However, when I took the Lockwoods to Scalford and listened to them in a room about three times the size of mine, I wasn't sitting there thinking 'wow, I wish could get this sound at home'...
As for the rest of the bit I've quoted, could you explain exactly what you're getting at? Sometimes you've got a habit of writing in riddles! ;)
Marco.
flatpopely
18-07-2012, 20:00
Hi Andrew,
Great to see you here - you should join Mark and visit more often! :)
Exactly, but sadly some people will just never 'get' that! :rolleyes:
How are you getting on with Serge, over on pfm? He's, erm, quite a 'character', isn't he? ;)
Marco.
You'll be seeing more of me!
Isn't the current belch of "R&B" pap released these days on a production line "composed" on a computer? I bet the input from the "musician" is extremely low...
This is part of the point I have tried to make regarding recorded music in general Dave.
As far as I've been able to gather very little music recorded in the digital age is a untampered with.
The notion that by listening to recorded music you are lsitening to a bunch of musicians doing there stuff is false. You listen to an engineers reconstruction and its done on a computer.
From my limited experience of watching "artists" record there is very little resemblance between what went on in the studio and the final product.
As you mention, some music doesn't even get near a person playing an instrument as one might generally descibe one; its a synth/computer and even then an engineer pisses all over that before the final mix.
Hi John,
I get the impression Marco that your self confessed lack of interest in the technical side of audio reproduction and your obvious disdain for anything remotely objective has meant that you’ve not attempted a blind listening test, or an ABX test (?)
I've tried blind listening tests, but not properly controlled ones. However, I don't have a "disdain" for anything remotely objective, you've got me wrong there. It's just that I've never needed the help of that way of thinking, in terms of equipment assessment or my ability to make decisions in audio, as I've gotten by rather well up until now, simply by ultimately having faith in my senses.
Therefore, as far as my current assessment methodology is concerned, I refer to old saying: 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' ;)
However, that said, I'm always willing to learn and embrace new ideas, providing that they interest me in principle, and I'm able to follow what is required, without it being too technical, otherwise I'm liable to quickly lose interest. TBH, I'd rather that someone else did 'the necessary', as it were, for me, and I simply took part in proceedings and offered my verdict.
I say this because of your earlier enquiry regarding how to set such a test up.
More information can be found written by this very reasonable and open minded chap here.
http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm
I'll have a look, but if the discussion gets too technical, it just won't be my thing. If we do this test, I'm expecting your friend Stef to do what is necessary, in terms of the technical side of things. I'll simply be there to listen to and judge the sonic results achieved by both systems.
If I was going to issue the type of very public and open challenge to those you’ve described as objectivists (prolly best not to cover all the other insults you’ve thrown at them ;)) then I would consider it prudent to at least have some idea of what I would be up against should such a challenge be taken up.
Indeed. I couldn't agree more, which is why if your friend is up for this, I'd like to meet him beforehand, by preferably visiting him and hearing his system, where he can show me the necessary technical procedure for measuring what we need to measure.
Would he be up for that? :)
I'm one of these people who learns much better through practical involvement, than by reading reams of instructions in a book or on-line. The information given by the latter rarely 'penetrates', as I quickly become bored with reading technical language, which means next to nothing to me.
As for the "insults" thing, please bear in mind that most of what I write here in that respect is simply in response to or when addressing what I read on other forums from belligerent and dogmatic objectivists, whom I know read this site. It's my way of sending out a big virtual 'Fuck You!' ;)
Therefore, never think that it's aimed at you, or any of your friends who are of an objectivist persuasion.
Considering the amount of information there is on the internet about just how hard it is to get positive results from either ABX or Blind Testing it should be fairly obvious that the odds are stacked heavily against you. Any challenger is going to insist on some or all of the test conditions.
I'm willing to entertain any reasonable test conditions, providing that they don't transform what is supposed to be a room for appreciating the subtleties of recorded music reproduced by a hi-fi system, into a geek's test lab! :eyebrows:
Marco.
It's 1986, The Alan Parsons Project 'Turn of a friendy card' is newly installed on my Thorens TD150. I don't do anything for two days other than listen to this record through my system, that I guess measures crap. At no point do I stop enjoying things and think, hmmm that treble ain't that good I bet it doesn't measure well either.
It's been the same ever since and I'm glad I love music to a point it transcends the banal and cold measurement philosophy.
We lose the love of music and the emotions it gives to our peril!
Sorry to quote you in this current scrap to help support my view. :)
As you so rightly point out imo, the quality of the kit you played Mr Parsons on (I still play it and its probably my favorite Parsons album) didn't make a jot of differnce to your ability to make an emotional connection to the music.
As Joe points out elsewhere to an extent my stage of major emotional connection to recorded music was probably in my teens. I had a car tape player with the door speakers nailed to the wall. I thought music sounded wonderful through it.
What Hi Fi has done is make me more critical if anything and in my late twenties I got to the point that I just coulodn't stand listening to classical music on a Hi Fi any more and still cant which is a shame because I adore live classical but I just cant get my brain to fill in the missing bits on a Hi Fi.
You'll be seeing more of me!
Excellent. I always enjoy reading your contributions on pfm. We can do 'flat earth' chat too here, you know. I used to be a major member of your 'gang'! ;)
Marco.
flatpopely
18-07-2012, 20:51
John, no problem, at least you enjoy music.
I had my mum and dad over a few weeks ago for a meal, my dad and I ended up listening to Holts 'Planets'. The music had the ability to reduce us both to tears, of joy, by the end.
Classics push many systems hard but if the music moves you a little hardness here or compression there doesn't get in the way.
@Marco
Ah,I didn't realise we had a disaproving audience of exteem objectivists. ;)
Why do they bother? This place must do their heads in.
I will do my best to get Stef to participate Marco.
He doesn't "approve" of audio boards as he describes them and I'm banned from mentioning AoS at his place. :eyebrows:
flatpopely
18-07-2012, 20:54
Excellent. I always enjoy reading your contributions on pfm. We can do 'flat earth' chat too here, you know. I used to be a major member of your 'gang'! ;)
Marco.
Marco.
At the end of the day I am passionate about music. The fact that also applies to my system, well what's not to like?
THD etc. gets you so far, that's all.
Referring back to Joe's feeling that his teens delivered the strongest emotional effects with music and Marco's statement that so much recent music is basically pap....the music that really moves me nowadays (in my mid 50's) is bebop. Rock from my teens was fantastic for sure but I feel the bebop genre of jazz even more deeply - whether live or recorded. In my situation I'd say I feel the music I listen to today moves me more than rock did in my teens.
Mr Kipling
18-07-2012, 21:13
Sorry to quote you in this current scrap to help support my view. :)
As you so rightly point out imo, the quality of the kit you played Mr Parsons on (I still play it and its probably my favorite Parsons album) didn't make a jot of differnce to your ability to make an emotional connection to the music.
As Joe points out elsewhere to an extent my stage of major emotional connection to recorded music was probably in my teens. I had a car tape player with the door speakers nailed to the wall. I thought music sounded wonderful through it.
What Hi Fi has done is make me more critical if anything and in my late twenties I got to the point that I just coulodn't stand listening to classical music on a Hi Fi any more and still cant which is a shame because I adore live classical but I just cant get my brain to fill in the missing bits on a Hi Fi.
After 45 years - that's FORTY. . .FIVE. . .YEARS. . . (!) - I still experience the same level of excitement whenever I listen to 'The Prisoner' tv theme track. Right from the opening thunder claps to the final notes. It's the same way with 'The Avengers' theme. I love tv and film soundtracks and these are probably my two favourites. Fan of John Barry and the harmonica on theme from 'Midnight Cowboy' kills me man. . . It just kills me. . .
After 45 years - that's FORTY. . .FIVE. . .YEARS. . . (!) - I still experience the same level of excitement whenever I listen to 'The Prisoner' tv theme track. Right from the opening thunder claps to the final notes. It's the same way with 'The Avengers' theme. I love tv and film soundtracks and these are probably my two favourites. Fan of John Barry and the harmonica on theme from 'Midnight Cowboy' kills me man. . . It just kills me. . .
Exactly! It is possible to keep your mojo. Those that have lost it should keep searching for it.
flatpopely
18-07-2012, 21:22
Exactly! It is possible to keep your mojo. Those that have lost it should keep searching for it.
My mojo may have gone astray when I listened to nothing but RUSH in my early twenties, fully restored when I saw them live two days before my wedding when I was 40.
After 45 years - that's FORTY. . .FIVE. . .YEARS. . . (!) - I still experience the same level of excitement whenever I listen to 'The Prisoner' tv theme track. Right from the opening thunder claps to the final notes. It's the same way with 'The Avengers' theme. I love tv and film soundtracks and these are probably my two favourites. Fan of John Barry and the harmonica on theme from 'Midnight Cowboy' kills me man. . . It just kills me. . .
A big John Barry fan myself. You missed out the classic:
t99QQIXez4M&feature=related
My favourite 'Barry' soundtrack just now is from Dances With Wolves ;)
KHvKviaeulg
Mr Kiplings earlier post. (forgot to quote)
I'm not quite sure how I'm susposed to reply to this :)
Lets try a bit of humour......
When I was a lad if I got my hand down the knickers of the only girl in the class who had tits I got pretty excited and emotional I suppose.
Once I got laid the same level of excitment wasn't quite there.
The more sex I got the more interested I became in various "alternative" avenues of sexual expression.
At 58 years old it takes a realy stunning women to even get my interest let alone think I'm in love.
I guess we are all different.
Some may say I've lost my mojo; I would answer no, my taste has just refined over the years. ;)
Mr Kipling
18-07-2012, 21:46
A big John Barry fan myself. You missed out the classic:
t99QQIXez4M&feature=related
My favourite 'Barry' soundtrack just now is from Dances With Wolves ;)
KHvKviaeulg
Have to say there's others I prefer including The Persuaders, Ipcress File (quite an interesing composition) The Adventurer, You Only Live Twice and Orsen Wells' Mysteries.
Maybe this says it better. ;)
TcmFFBExb7w
Mr Kipling
18-07-2012, 22:02
Mr Kiplings earlier post. (forgot to quote)
I'm not quite sure how I'm susposed to reply to this :)
Lets try a bit of humour......
When I was a lad if I got my hand down the knickers of the only girl in the class who had tits I got pretty excited and emotional I suppose.
Once I got laid the same level of excitment wasn't quite there.
The more sex I got the more interested I became in various "alternative" avenues of sexual expression.
At 58 years old it takes a realy stunning women to even get my interest let alone think I'm in love.
I guess we are all different.
Some may say I've lost my mojo; I would answer no, my taste has just refined over the years. ;)
Oh, I'm just speaking for myself. Wouldn't dream of suggesting we shoulld all be the same.
As to women, maybe I'm just more desperate than you, John.
Oh, I'm just speaking for myself. Wouldn't dream of suggesting we shoulld all be the same.
As to women, maybe I'm just more desperate than you, John.
In that case this will do for you
Ytb7oS9MErE
Hi John,
Sorry I'm rather late getting to this.
There is no correlation between reproduction quality and emotional connection to the recording.
Of course there is. Quite simply, the more musical information a system reveals, embedded in recordings, the more enjoyment a discerning listener gets from listening to the music, presuming of course that the listener is a genuine music lover. The increased enjoyment, thereby derived from the listening experience, is as a result of having achieved a more intense emotional connection with the music on the recording.
That is precisely what makes you want to dance to the sound of the music on your system!
Why do we improve our systems by employing the use of better equipment? The answer is, of course, to hear MORE of the music on our favourite recordings, and the reason why achieving a genuine sonic upgrade in a system does that, is simply because beforehand some of the information was being masked by the sonic limitations of the playback equipment. If that wasn't the case, then no improvement would have been heard.
You're under the misapprehension that once a system reaches a certain level of fidelity, in terms of it reproducing recorded music, no further improvements can be gained. We cannot ever know that, as we have no access to the original master recordings (the sound that left the studio), with which to make a valid comparison.
In effect, we have no idea at any time how faithfully our systems are reproducing the musical information contained on our copy of any given recording. Realistically, unless technology improves drastically, I don't think we'll ever get to the stage where a hi-fi system can reproduce a genuine, unadulterated facsimile of the music recorded on any format, be it physical or file-based.
If there is any merit to your argument then it is difficult to see how music survived without Hi Fi because taking your argument to an extreme music wouldn’t have survived the lower quality reproduction of the lower fidelity mediums used by the majority of those who listen to music.
No, that's not the case at all. It's simply about catering for different needs. People for whom high-fidelity reproduction of their favourite music is unimportant to their enjoyment of it, will never be the type to own a decent hi-fi system, and will content themselves with using whatever replay equipment they consider is adequate for their needs - but that doesn't mean to say that there isn't more and/or better to be had!
I do wonder sometimes why those who claim to gain little in their enjoyment of music, whether listening to it on a transistor radio or car stereo, compared with their system at home, bother with high-end hi-fi at all, as quite clearly, they're not getting the benefit from it that they should be.
Jeez, both the quality of the sound reproduction and the enjoyment I get from listening to music, through my system at home, bears no comparison whatsoever with the grossly inferior experience, on both counts, I get from listening to it in the car, or on the clock radio beside my bed, even though the latter is satisfactory. Quite simply, if that's not the case, then sell your expensive stereo right now and buy something more appropriate for your needs!
Okay, I realize you are arguing about degrees of pleasure and for you obviously more is better.
Well, who in their right mind would want less of a good thing??
It all gets a bit tricky after this because the information on the medium is finite and I’ll assume the objectivist would argue that his/her system retrieves all that is there and if you are getting something more then it isn’t stuff that should be there in the first place.
Lol... The objectivist might well claim that, but whether that's actually the case is debatable.
In my experience of listening to the systems objectivists have assembled, to my ears they were most certainly not 'transparent'; in fact anything but, as quite clearly, those that I heard were incapable of resolving the subtle nuances (aspects of timing and temporal or spatial cues, timbre, etc, all of which cannot be measured on our current test apparatus), but are cruical for recordings of music to have 'life' and thus, believability, and therefore have sounded flat (as in lifeless), 2-dimensional, and as such, virtually bereft of musical merit.
In effect, the systems concerned edited the results heard by the listener, due their lack of ultimate musical resolution, and thus produced a sound FAR from any notion of genuine 'accuracy' - that's musical accuracy, not accuracy as dictated by test apparatus, measuring something else entirely!
You also seem to have avoided what I asked you to consider earlier, so I'll repeat it, as I'd appreciate your thoughts on this:
Why else is the experience of watching a movie on a big screen, in high definition, more enjoyable than watching the same movie on an old portable TV, or having your favourite dish cooked by a master chef, using the exact same ingredients as you would, but where the end result is so much better than you could've hoped to achieve?
How do you measure for that??
Think about it, especially the question in the last sentence, and how it relates to the ability of an objectivist to build a system which produces the most musically believable sound, when they shun the importance of aspects of the reproduction of recorded music, crucial in order to achieve this, simply because they aren't currently measurable.
If however you were to argue that there is a higher level of emotional connection between a live performance and the observer I might agree with you.
Yes, but the whole point of owning a truly top-notch hi-fi system is that the sound it reproduces, given the best recordings that capture as faithfully as possible the performance of the artist(s) in the studio, gets you closer to experiencing that sensation of a live performance. Of course no hi-fi system will ever replicate it, but anyone who loves superb sound as much as great music (count me in), wants to get as close as they possibly can. 'Adequate', under any circumstances, is not in their vocabulary.
If you've never experienced that effect with recorded music, then quite simply, you've never heard a truly great hi-fi system!
By your own admission there are particular aspects of your replay system that make you feel more connected to the music, the medium for example, a file doesn’t have the same emotional kick as handling a record, reading the album sleeve, the knowledge that you’ve invested your money in custom made equipment etc etc.
Virtually none of that peripheral stuff that you seem to need to enjoy music makes much difference to me.
That's fine - it's just personal preference, based on how I choose to interact with the music I listen to, and in that respect, you're different. However, none of that has anything to do with the ability of my system, or otherwise, to retrieve more information from recordings than someone of the opposite mindset.
I think you may just have an emotional connection with what you perceive as quality Marco.
Well, I guess we all have an emotional connection with something, even if some of us try our best to deny it!! ;)
Marco.
I do not think my emotional experience of music has changed to much over the years, I remember as a teen going to concerts and experiencing that eurphoic feeling of connection to the music. What has changed is the variety of music I listen too and that I have pushed my system as close as I can get to the illusion of having the band in my room. Live music will always be my reference point.
The other influnce has been playing guitar both electric and acoustic, so understand how diffirent guitars and equipment can sound. Believe me most musicians I know put a lot of thought and money into getting their sound. I can hear what a player is doing and want my system to be able to produce all of this.
If there is any merit to your argument then it is difficult to see how music survived without Hi Fi because taking your argument to an extreme music wouldn’t have survived the lower quality reproduction of the lower fidelity mediums used by the majority of those who listen to music.
If I hadn't been bald before reading this thread I most definitely would be by now... :doh:
Okay, lets take my T-Amp: With apologies to Chris and the team at Amptastic, judged solely on how this little amp measures on a test rig an objectivist would bin it. The same fate would befall most valve amps too. Neither type perform well under test conditions for distortion and yet they sound bloody fantastic. Surely this fact alone blows the obectivist argument clean out of the water or am I missing something?
sq225917
19-07-2012, 07:55
Ultimately for me there's no correlation, I like to hear music at its best, but some of my favourite recording are things I recorded from the radio onto tape. It's because of what they are and where they were placed in my life that makes them special, not their fidelity.
Quality and enjoyment don't go hand in hand to the exclusion of all other factors.
Hi Dave,
Regarding the latter, sure, nothing is perfect. However, when I took the Lockwoods to Scalford and listened to them in a room about three times the size of mine, I wasn't sitting there thinking 'wow, I wish could get this sound at home'...
As for the rest of the bit I've quoted, could you explain exactly what you're getting at? Sometimes you've got a habit of writing in riddles! ;)
Marco.
Sorry squire, but what I thought would be interesting is this...
Take your complete CD player to a studio. Listen to a master file (analogue or digital) through their monitoring system, have a CD-R burned of this file and compare it to the original to hopefully ascertain it's close or indistinguishable from the original. Play this CD-R on your player to make sure it's close or indistinguishable (or better) than their pro DAC and then take the disc and player back home to see how much better your playback system is.
This then leads into other riddles I suppose, but as said in more recent posts than yours linked to above, most modern recordings are severely tampered with and it's in this tampering that I reckon the heart and soul is sapped out of the original recording session.
What convinced me about digital being fine was listening to some truly wonderful Jazz from the 50's, where a bum note meant they did another take. There was no "mix" in which to fix it, since four tracks was about all they had back then, if at all. These untampered with recordings can sound SO good on red-book CD. I must admit, I'm not a natural jazz fan and since the big ATC's and I said goodbye to each other and I moved away from my mate who is a real jazz fan with a huge library of recordings, these discs have been stored away in a box unplayed for fifteen years or more...
I agree with Simon and would also add that as with most things in life the reality usually lies somewhere close to the middle of two opposing views....
Yes, but the whole point of owning a truly top-notch hi-fi system is that the sound it reproduces, given the best recordings that capture as faithfully as possible the performance of the artist(s) in the studio, gets you closer to experiencing the sensation of a genuine live performance. Of course no hi-fi system will ever replicate it, but anyone who loves superb sound as much as great music (count me in), wants to get as close as they possibly can. 'Adequate', under any circumstances, is not in their vocabulary.
If you've never experienced that effect with recorded music, then quite simply, you've never heard a truly great hi-fi system!
Marco.
must agree there marco,
good point well made...
i read some one say on another forum,' who wants all that fine detail'
sort of sums up many people's approach.
for me power/size /cost to a point/ looks- don't count... as ulitimate quality is my goal. and i've made the amps/ speakers from the best components i have (my system ideals are the opposite to many mainstream aproaches too)
On my journey what has shocked me is how much information is acutually on a cd and how much of the signal the average dac/ amplifier/ speakers filter out, then adds to, in the way of colourations and distortions.
its scary....
bobbasrah
19-07-2012, 09:20
I agree with Simon and would also add that as with most things in life the reality usually lies somewhere close to the middle of two opposing views....
...and accounting for probably about 98% of all hifi enthusiasts, who are probably 0.98% of the population as a whole...:scratch:
Learned nothing so far other than about prejudices.....
...and accounting for probably about 98% of all hifi enthusiasts, who are probably 0.98% of the population as a whole...
Indeed, Bob, but since when have the views of 'Joe public' (non-audio enthusiasts) been relevant to discussion about high-end audio?
Therefore, 'our world' relates only to the tiny percentage of the population you've quoted, and so the views expressed here and on other similar sites, catering for that audience, are representative of that. Simples! :)
Marco.
Hi Steve,
Good to see you here again, mate :)
i read some one say on another forum,' who wants all that fine detail'
sort of sums up many people's approach.
Indeed. However I think that part of the problem is not so much that they don't want it; it's that they don't know how to get it! But rather than admit that, they plead indifference :doh:
As you know all too well, it takes years of experience of assembling systems (and in your case actually building the equipment itself) to understand just how much there is in audio that we don't know, and so only by continually experimenting are we able to discover that fact, which then allows us to employ what we consider is a solution, in order to allow our systems to move forward, in terms of reproducing more faithfully the musical information contained on our favourite recordings.
The fact is, it's a continual learning curve! 'Perfection' in audio has not yet been reached, nor is it ever likely to be. Trouble is, some folk can't handle that thought: there must forever exist the notion of 'all there is to know is known', and that 'sonic transparency', in equipment, is now a reality, otherwise it fucks with their (absolutist) heads :rolleyes:
An interesting test for people would be to ask themselves if they consider that their current system, if different from the one that they had, say, 10 or 15 years ago, notably outperforms what they had then, as in has it improved their enjoyment of listening to their favourite music?
If not, then they've made no genuine progress, in terms of improving the musical fidelity (and ultimate quality) of their system - and that's unfortunately systematic of continually chasing a sound that you don't know quite how to achieve, and consequently ending up going round and round in circles, in a state of more dissatisfaction than satisfaction; thus the eternal 'box swapper' is born...
On my journey what has shocked me is how much information is acutually on a cd and how much of the signal the average dac/ amplifier/ speakers filter out, then adds to, in the way of colourations and distortions.
Indeed; I totally agree, as the experience I've had on my journey so far has taught me the same, even though our methods, which have allowed us to get the point we're at now, have been very different.
That's precisely the point I was making earlier to John (Welder). If you believe that your system is currently capable of revealing all that there is to reveal, in terms of musical information, on CD, vinyl, or file-based audio, then unfortunately, you're badly mistaking the reality...
Marco.
Non-audiophiles say to me, "you must have incredible hearing to jusify your system", until they experience some of the emotion many (not all it seems) feel.
I know this has been said .. but the issue with audiophiles is this, they/we all have many different ideas of what a system should sound like,
Up to a few years ago we used to have a trophy at our DIY meets that greg always orgianised,
going around the group, asking the individuals what was in their opinion the best amp etc gave a very mixed reaction... I'm sure we all hear the same but our brains pick up on different aspects.
my right is not everybody else's right... and i'm happy with that..
but i know alot of people who think on the same lines as me...
If I hadn't been bald before reading this thread I most definitely would be by now... :doh:
Okay, lets take my T-Amp: With apologies to Chris and the team at Amptastic, judged solely on how this little amp measures on a test rig an objectivist would bin it. The same fate would befall most valve amps too. Neither type perform well under test conditions for distortion and yet they sound bloody fantastic. Surely this fact alone blows the obectivist argument clean out of the water or am I missing something?
I think you’re missing rather a lot Dave; apart from your hair. :D
What you’ve written generally supports rather than negates the point I am trying to make.
I don’t know how well or badly your T amps measures but for the sake of argument let’s say it does “test” badly.
(I think in fact you’ll find it performs rather well within its capabilities)
The argument Marco has put forward is in essence (although it has got a bit blurred with the use of the term enjoyment) the better the kit the greater the emotional connection one has with the music.
This was in response to my statement that “there is no correlation between reproduction quality and emotional connection to the recording.”
I think it’s probably fair to include measured performance as well as the non measurable attributes in the term better.
What you are suggesting is that despite what you believe to be poor measurable performance your T amp in your system sounds great and I assume given the context of the debate, gives you a great deal of emotional connection to the music.
Just to make my point clear; a piece of equipment that according to you would measure so badly on a test rig that an objectivist would bin it doesn’t fall in the “better” equipment category.
Of course, for those supporting the extreme subjective side, the argument that it doesn’t matter how something measures as long as it sounds good may seem reasonable.
However, I think even the most staunch subjectivists would be prepared to concede that the best equipment will measure very well.
A piece of audio equipment can’t be revealing/transparent and have all the other rather vague sonic attributes and produce a trace that looks like the Himalayas. :eyebrows:
A well designed valve amplifier can measure just as well as a solid state amp I think you’ll find.
@ I have to do stuff but I'l answer you later Marco.
What you are suggesting is that despite what you believe to be poor measurable performance your T amp in your system sounds great and I assume given the context of the debate, gives you a great deal of emotional connection to the music.
Well, surely that's valid evidence which suggests that our current measurement parameters are incomplete, and thus only tell part of the story? That's how I interpret Dave's statement.
However, I think even the most staunch subjectivists would be prepared to concede that the best equipment will measure very well.
A piece of audio equipment can’t be revealing/transparent and have all the other rather vague sonic attributes and produce a trace that looks like the Himalayas.
A well designed valve amplifier can measure just as well as a solid state amp I think you’ll find.
Absolutely (with knobs on!) Especially the last bit. I don't believe that an amplifier exists that measures badly, yet sounds superb, and I'm just about to make that point to Dave :)
I have to do stuff but I'l answer you later Marco.
I look forward to it. However, please read and digest what I've written carefully, so that you fully understand it, in order to save any subsequent reply from me, simply correcting your missing (or avoiding) the point! ;)
Marco.
P.S Dave (DSJR) I'll get to your post later.
Hi Dave,
Okay, lets take my T-Amp: With apologies to Chris and the team at Amptastic, judged solely on how this little amp measures on a test rig an objectivist would bin it.
Not necessarily, although I take your point. Providing that it met the technical criteria necessary for an 'objectivist' to consider it as 'sonically transparent', it would not be binned.
The same fate would befall most valve amps too.
Untrue. Only the very poor ones that distort (thus colour) the audio signal to a noticeable degree, the effect of which would be revealed via measurement and also through subjective listening.
Neither type perform well under test conditions for distortion and yet they sound bloody fantastic.
That bit is true, however there are different types of distortion, some of which is more benign to the human ear than others. Valve amps produce the latter (second harmonic), which is why that THD figures, taken literally, can be rather misleading, in terms of accurately interpreting how a valve amplifier will sound :)
Marco.
Non-audiophiles say to me, "you must have incredible hearing to jusify your system", until they experience some of the emotion many (not all it seems) feel.
The old 'golden-eared' bollocks is a complete red herring. I've yet to play my system to any 'non-audiophile', who can't immediately and readily hear how different (superior) music that they know sounds, compared with how it does on their midi-systems (or similar) at home!
Marco.
StanleyB
19-07-2012, 12:56
The old 'golden-eared' bollocks is a complete red herring. I've yet to play my system to any 'non-audiophile', who can't immediately and readily hear how different (superior) music that they know sounds, compared with how it does on their midi-systems (or similar) at home!
We going round in circles in this thread. I already outlined the case against the perception that midi system owners have towards better method of musical reproduction.
Has anyone ever been to a live performance that left them cold? I did, when Maazel annihilated his Mahler cycle way back when. he resorted to windmilling his arms and stamping on the podium to get the orchestra going and even that left me cold. Shortly after this, an Abbado concert at the RFH conducting Mahler 6 had me absolutely spellbound, the time just flying and flowing by and the beauty of the symphony coming through with little to no effort of the orchestra or conductor needed..
I really do think that most domestic HiFi's and probably a good few pro setups too, are pretty dire in all honesty, either through dreadful setting up, a hideous room or just bad matching (or a combination of all three). Sorry chaps, it just has to be said! get a stereo that's liking the room it's in, properly matched together and sounding well balanced all round, it's amazing how satisfying it can be :)
StanleyB
19-07-2012, 13:20
Has anyone ever been to a live performance that left them cold?
I have been to a couple of live performances in Amsterdam. They were not cold at all.
So you're the original "bush" master then Stan :lol:
Ah, yes, 'fur burgers'.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
StanleyB
19-07-2012, 13:39
I can assure you that the music was live :D.
Hi John,
Sorry I'm rather late getting to this.
Of course there is. Quite simply, the more musical information a system reveals, embedded in recordings, the more enjoyment a discerning listener gets from listening to the music, presuming of course that the listener is a genuine music lover. The increased enjoyment, thereby derived from the listening experience, is as a result of having achieved a more intense emotional connection with the music on the recording.
Just NO! Marco. :lol:
There is no such correlation.
What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting that those who love a beautiful (best) women feel more love, or a greater emotional connection than those who love ugly (not quite so good) women. :eek:
Not only is this unsupportable; it’s abhorrent. :(
Next, you can’t measure emotional connection, so how on earth can you establish a correlation.
You could try a poll here and hope that partisan bias would be ignored, but from comments given so far it seems that the music comes first and the reproduction quality while desirable isn’t of primary importance.
Even more disturbing is that you, radical subjectivist, could even suggest that there can be some generally applicable measure of emotional connection. You have to measure to gain anything but a completely subjective impression of best. Emotional connections are completely subjective, immeasurable and unquantifiable.
I could get away with such a posture given I’ve stated that my main interest in Hi Fi is stereo reproduction and recorded music comes second place, but if your going to adopt this posture then you need to consider whether you may not fit in better with the extreme objectivists who will probably come up with some gadget to measure erectile response gathered from groups of men having beautiful women paraded in front of them and then call such responses emotions. :D
While imo it’s quite acceptable for you to say the quality of audio reproduction increases your emotional connection to the music, it isn’t acceptable for you to suggest that this must obviously be the same for everyone else and therefore an indisputable logical conclusion.
That’s an objectivists stance. :scratch:
That is precisely what makes you want to dance to the sound of the music on your system!
What makes me want to dance to music is the beat and rhythm Marco. I promise you, I don’t dance any better in front of a high quality stereo than I do in front of the local less than perfect PA system. Beat and rhythm are in general conveyed well enough on a very basic system and a visit to a few clubs will go some way to illustrate this.
You're under the misapprehension that once a system reaches a certain level of fidelity, in terms of it reproducing recorded music, no further improvements can be gained. We cannot ever know that, as we have no access to the original master recordings (the sound that left the studio), with which to make a valid comparison.
I’m not under any misapprehensions ;) I was suggesting that objectivists might argue that there is a finite amount of information on any given medium and even the most basic system is capable of reproducing all that information to the extent that the sonic performance between competently designed systems is indistinguishable by ear.
So far, in the tests carried out, they seem to have a case. Arguing about the validity of such tests is a different matter.
In effect, we have no idea at any time how faithfully our systems are reproducing the musical information contained on our copy of any given recording. Realistically, unless technology improves drastically, I don't think we'll ever get to the stage where a hi-fi system can reproduce a genuine, unadulterated facsimile of the music recorded on any format, be it physical or file-based.
I agree with your comments on current technological limitations of audio reproduction.
No, that's not the case at all. It's simply about catering for different needs. People for whom high-fidelity reproduction of their favourite music is unimportant to their enjoyment of it, will never be the type to own a decent hi-fi system, and will content themselves with using whatever replay equipment they consider is adequate for their needs - but that doesn't mean to say that there isn't more and/or better to be had!
I do wonder sometimes why those who claim to gain little in their enjoyment of music, whether listening to it on a transistor radio or car stereo, compared with their system at home, bother with high-end hi-fi at all, as quite clearly, they're not getting the benefit from it that they should be.
Whoa! Steady mate, you’ve just called my stereo crap :lol:
You’ve also equated Hi End with audio quality and you’ve acknowledged elsewhere that this isn’t necessarily the case.
This is exactly the reason I don’t have Hi End Hi Fi. A great deal of what I’ve heard that falls into this category doesn’t provide any better quality audio than what I have.
I wont even go into your assumptions regarding peoples levels of enjoyment. :doh:
Well, who in their right mind would want less of a good thing??
Well,this is actually an interesting point.
I would argue that it is exactly that attitude that is responsible for society’s current ills; everybody wants and for some reason expects to have more and more of what they consider to be a good thing.
To quote a rather trite saying “you can have too much of a good thing”. :eyebrows:
You also seem to have avoided what I asked you to consider earlier, so I'll repeat it, as I'd appreciate your thoughts on this:
Tbh Marco I can’t honestly say I give a flying feck what I watch a film on as long as I can make out the picture and hear the words. I so not give a flying feck, that I don’t have a TV, or a high resolution, take up a wall, surround sound, super Hi Definition video anything. My view is a bit like the importance of print quality in a book; as long as it’s readable that will do me. My gaming monitor is reasonable I suppose, but that’s because I need a certain degree of clarity and resolution to interact with other players but once a certain frame rate is achievable, enough to play without render tearing or fps drop that is good enough and all the extra, moar performance currently available doesn’t in reality improve my performance ro enhance my enjoyment.
Think about it, especially the question in the last sentence, and how it relates to the ability of an objectivist to build a system which produces the most musically believable sound, when they shun the importance of aspects of the reproduction of recorded music, crucial in order to achieve this, simply because they aren't currently measurable.
I don’t believe you can measure for that Marco. I don’t believe we can measure everything in audio either.
What I do believe is both measurement and listening evaluation has a place in audio and that fanaticism on both sides does nothing to further quality audio and nothing to span the bridge between the two camps.
Marco.
Let’s face it Marco, I’m just not going to make a truly discerning quality conscious anything when it comes to material stuff am I?
I’ve got a pretty good stereo though. :)
John, having just read what you're written, you've still succeeded to spectacularly miss the point - several times!! :doh:
If I can be arsed later, I might cherry-pick some of the worst instances of the above, and highlight them for discussion, or alternatively, after having now lost the will to live, I'll just bow out of engaging you in further discussion, since you continually fail to grasp the intended point being made...... :brickwall: :brickwall:
The points I made earlier should be clear to anyone else who is capable of actually reading what is written, rather than what their biases see there instead.
Marco.
John, having just read what you're written, you've still succeeded to spectacularly miss the point - several times!! :doh:
If I can be arsed later, I might cherry-pick some of the worst instances of the above, and highlight them for discussion, or alternatively, after having now lost the will to live, I'll just bow out of engaging you in further discussion, since you continually fail to grasp the intended point being made...... :brickwall: :brickwall:
The points I made earlier should be clear to anyone else who is capable of actually reading what is written, rather than what their biases see there instead.
Marco.
No, dont bother with the cherry picking Marco, just make the one point.
Not only did I read what you wrote, I answered section by section.
The headbanging on the wall wont help. ;)
I think I've completely grasped your points; I just dont agree with you.
Well, I've been told that I really HAVE to listen to good modern active speakers since I don't seem to know what the heck I'm talking about. I have it on very good authority, well Ashley James, that ALL passive speakers boom and are harsh, complex crossovers destroy imaging, phase coherance and amp control and anything bigger than a squiddly box is resonant and doesn't image.
There! Sor'ed :lol: I don't even have to listen to anything.......
Ali Tait
19-07-2012, 22:23
Ah, yes, 'fur burgers'.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Ah yes, my favourite!
Going back a few pages perhaps..
I'd disagree that a better hifi increases the emotional connection with the music.
Good hifi improves the sound. Listening to good sound isn't emotion based, it's enjoyment based.
Emotion is about human condition, connection with others, empathy with stories/lyrics etc etc - this is all contained within the music; the notes and performance. These can be heard pretty well on any half-decent stereo (or even a bad one).
I also enjoy gorgeous sounds to accompany the music which are revealed through great hifi.
I am self aware enough though to realise when I'm enjoying a gorgeous sound at the same time as enjoying the emotion of the music but still not to confuse which is causing which.
Probably just semantics though and no-one ever bothers to define terms before a discussion (hence many endless arguments on forums).
Perhaps when people enjoy a gorgeous sound they will call this triggered happy feeling part of the emotion of the music. Personally I'd say it is part of the sound and not the music.
Having said that, great timing on a system (and the performers themselves) can really pull emotion in the music together.
But Nat......the experience of joy is an emotion. I think if you try to scientifically dissect emotions you're going down a path where pleasure is just a combination of chemicals. It is....but it's better for most humans to live with mystical ideals.
Indeed, Clive, but some people just don't 'get' it, or look at things that way. Their rather dispassionate attitude to the relationship between hi-fi and music, as described here is, for me, very revealing, in terms of the decisions they're likely to make when selecting equipment, and how they will then 'voice' their systems accordingly, based on those decisions.
You know when you go around the rooms at a hi-fi show, or at Scalford (or even visit people for bake-offs), and you might find systems which sound very 'impressive', in a hi-fi sense (they tick all the right boxes, in terms of 'accurate stereo reproduction'), but still fail to 'connect' you with the music, in a way which draws you into the performance or makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck (with the appropriate music), so that rather than sitting there in awe of the sound, you can't tear yourself away from how the system is 'connecting' you (emotionally) with the music?
What I'm getting at is that a 'technically inferior' system, in a hi-fi sense (but one that still gets the musical fundamentals right) can succeed better at connecting the listener to the music, than a 'technically superior' system, which majors on producing an 'impressive' sound. That's often one of the reasons why smaller, simpler, systems get it more 'musically right', than bigger, more complicated ones, as they can succeed better at conveying intimacy.
Maybe you get where I'm coming from, or perhaps you don't... It's quite hard to put into words, but when you hear it, you'll know it. Essentially, it's about being able to successfully differentiate between appreciating a system that produces an 'impressive' sound, and one which succeeds at that, but also in making recorded music 'feel' real. The two aren't necessarily intrinsically linked. From reading some of the comments written here, I can get a pretty good sense of who would be likely to own either of those types of systems.
For me, building a truly musically rewarding hi-fi system is about much more than ensuring that it excels at all the 'hi-fi tricks' - that's the easy bit. It's about removing as far as possible the artifice which thus allows the listening experience to transcend from being that of enjoying merely a good recording, to as close as possible that of feeling the emotional connection one gets from attending a live musical performance, and if you don't understand how to achieve that, or indeed that notion in the first place, then you'll never likely own that type of system or be able to relate to what I'm describing.
That's it in a nutshell.
Going back to the issue of 'emotional connection', in relation to music, how many of us here have returned home from work in a really bad mood, after having had a crap day, sat down, played our favourite music on our system, and immediately felt the stress and tension melt away? I certainly have!
If that experience isn't as a result of having achieved an emotional connection with your favourite music, then I don't know what is. Now, you might argue that you'd get the same effect from switching your transistor radio on and listening to your favourite music station, but the point is that a really good hi-fi system, playing your favourite music, should take that experience to an altogether higher level.
*That* is what I'm getting at, and what some people here, despite my best efforts, seem unable to grasp.
Marco.
I'm sure we all feel emotions in our own differing ways. But there seem some who are more bereft of emotion than others so they to try to justify or trash things that other feel passionate about. To do this they try to resort to science but of course science or ill-applied science struggles to tell the whole story.
I know some people quite well on this forum who are really great at analysing systems but I'm yet to see them really enjoying music. There are others what massively enjoy music.
I totally agree. Do you understand where I'm coming from, though? :)
The other thing I think which is significant, is I believe that those who are solely (or more) into digital than analogue sound, are less likely to 'get' where I'm coming from, purely because digital equipment tends not to show up the 'hi-fi sound' vs. 'musical sound' thing, to the same degree, and I'm not talking here about the effect of euphony.
Take comparing pick-up cartridges, for example. Play your favourite record, with an SPU or a Decca, and then the same record with, say, a Lyra or an Audio Technica, and what I'm describing would hit you smack in the face! But if you've never experienced that type of thing, then quite simply, it's impossible to relate to it.
Marco.
flatpopely
20-07-2012, 08:33
I'm sure we all feel emotions in our own differing ways. But there seem some who are more bereft of emotion than others so they to try to justify or trash things that other feel passionate about. To do this they try to resort to science but of course science or ill-applied science struggles to tell the whole story.
I know some people quite well on this forum who are really great at analysing systems but I'm yet to see them really enjoying music. There are others what massively enjoy music.
Indeed; its very much a case of knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing, if you see what I mean.
Listening to music, for me, is an emotional experience. To contantly analyze why something sounds the way it does ABOVE the actually beauty of listening to music is to rob it of the essence of what the musician was trying to do. While I am in the zone I can honestly say I have never thought that my system may not measure well and its robbing me of the musical enjoyment. This does not mean I dont want to improve what I have (although atm I'm totally satisfied with what I have), if I hear something that gets out a bit more detail or soundstage etc. then I investigate but the driving force is connection to the music, not how it measures.
BUT here is the real bottom line for me, if you enjoy what your system does then its perfect for YOU and NO ONE can tell you otherwise. Its like a friend of mine (a Master wine sommelier) once said to me "What is the best wine in the world Andrew" I said something along the lines of a posh Burgundy he said "No, it the wine YOU enjoy the most". I think that sentement applies to Hi-Fi as well.
Ive heard some systems I think are truly bad but that just my opnion and its no more valid than the system owner who thinks its superb no matter how it measures!
To reduce enjoyment to THD, CMRR etc. is to lose the Art of Sound :)
I do get where you're coming from Marco. As for the others aspects, I'd add to your very valid list musicians actually playing together at the same time, in the same room (interplay).
Hi Andrew,
This does not mean I dont want to improve what I have (although atm I'm totally satisfied with what I have), if I hear something that gets out a bit more detail or soundstage etc. then I investigate but the driving force is connection to the music, not how it measures.
Me too! :)
BUT here is the real bottom line for me, if you enjoy what your system does then its perfect for YOU and NO ONE can tell you otherwise. Its like a friend of mine (a Master wine sommelier) once said to me "What is the best wine in the world Andrew" I said something along the lines of a posh Burgundy he said "No, it the wine YOU enjoy the most". I think that sentement applies to Hi-Fi as well.
Absolutely, and as a wine connoisseur I very much empathise with those sentiments, so let's extrapolate them a little:
Any pretentious idiot can go into a wine merchants and, if they have the required funds, buy the most expensive wine in the shop, under the premise that they have thus acquired the 'best' wine, in an attempt to 'wow' their friends at a dinner party.
However it takes knowledge, experience and a genuine understanding of the subject matter, to successfully select the 'best' wine that you know will still 'wow' your friends (as you know from experience the style of wine that they like), but which costs a fraction of the price of the 'best' wine sold in the shop. It's about understanding precisely what it is you're trying to achieve, and knowing exactly how to achieve it.
The same principle can be applied when building a hi-fi system, which majors on musical communication, assembled around achieving the highest SPPV, rather than on the ownership of a 'desirable badge', or simply a bunch of numbers, the technical meaning of which appeases one's 'measurist' sensibilities.
To reduce enjoyment to THD, CMRR etc. is to lose the Art of Sound..
Indeed. When making decisions about selecting equipment, in the process of building a hi-fi system, do you listen more with your brain or your heart? ;)
If it's the former, then you'll never understand the validity of what others and I are saying here in a month of Sundays.
Marco.
Emotion....I remember a friend from my teens. He slept with his girlfriend; he said to me that "sex is ok but not all it's cracked up to be". Of course he was missing the point (no pun intended).
I was very lucky back in the late 80's to find a CD player that allowed the musical side of an accurate reproduction to come through. It didn't need to add "colour" to the sonics to convince - it just got on with it and allowed the listener to hear into the recorded performances. It's been subsequently joined by a small number of CD players at various prices that are entirely "accurate" but don't strip the warmth and weight in the recording away as cheapo amps do (what I dislike about the Mini T amp into some speakers - too thin toned).
Objectivists of old always used to go to live choral, jazz and orchestral concerts and probably a lot of them actually played acoustic instruments too, keeping their feet on the ground and keeping the basic knowledge of "accurate" reproduction. It's the people who "claim" to be objective I'm getting a dislike for, yet when the thin veneer is stripped away, they don't really know what "accurate" means. I think I've been to enough concerts and jazz gigs in venues and local pubs too, to get a handle on what a good stereo should do to "suspend disbelief" that it's a mechanically reproduced sound...
Going back to the issue of 'emotional connection', in relation to music, how many of us here have returned home from work in a really bad mood, after having had a crap day, sat down, played our favourite music on our system, and immediately felt the stress and tension melt away? I certainly have!
If that experience isn't as a result of having achieved an emotional connection with your favourite music, then I don't know what is. Now, you might argue that you'd get the same effect from switching your transistor radio on and listening to your favourite music station, but the point is that a really good hi-fi system, playing your favourite music, should take that experience to an altogether higher level.
*That* is what I'm getting at, and what some people here, despite my best efforts, are failing to grasp.
Marco.
Marco
I hear live musicians every day in the Town Centre (traffic free). From time to time I get what I call an emotional connection, an inner tear, pull of the heart. It isn't the liveness or detail of sound that you dwell upon, its the music itself, lyrics, way of singing that connects with me and the quality is often poor due to portable amps they use.
Im not looking to argue anything with you just let you know that we are all different and because we do not "get it" as you see it is not that meritous of making a big thing of it. You don't get what we are about.
I noted another post where the OP could not accept that people who heard less detail in music than him could appreciate and play music - as far as he was concerned they just couldn't.
Detail in one's system is joyfull as I found when I got a headphone amp and top of the range phones. I could hear stuff I never dreamed was on that CD, better than live almost. It was pleasure in what could be achieved with kit, pride of ownership crept in too.
Thankfully we are not all clones, it seems some members expect others to be like them and are deemed lesser for not being so.
BTW I tried Tellurium Q Black speaker cables - excellent improvement more than I expected. Tried an unnamed Mains Cable sod all different or so subtle.
And a Great thread thanks to all posters.
Alan,
I'm sure Marco will be along with his views. My personal take is that everyone should enjoy music in their own way. Anyone who doesn't derive enjoyment from music probably shouldn't even be bothering with this forum! You are quite right in that everyone has different buttons that music pushes (I've paraphrased). Unlike yourself I don't listen to lyrics, probably due to dyslexia and my thinking more in pictures than words. I treat vocals as an instrument. Friends of mine will say how meaningful a song was, whereas I'd need to read the lyric sheet to get it. We're all different and individual - I just hope we all find enjoyment and pleasure from music and even tinkering with systems too for some.
Hi Alan,
I hear live musicians every day in the Town Centre (traffic free). From time to time I get what I call an emotional connection, an inner tear, pull of the heart. It isn't the liveness or detail of sound that you dwell upon, its the music itself, lyrics, way of singing that connects with me and the quality is often poor due to portable amps they use.
Spot on! You're 'getting' exactly where I'm coming from, expressed in the bit I've highlighted above. However, the point you're missing, IMO, is that some hi-fi systems (and equipment) succeed at the above better than others, when reproducing the finest recordings, simply by more effectively conveying, to the listener, the beauty and 'emotional pull' of the music.
A supposedly 'technically inferior' system, in a hi-fi sense (but one that still gets the musical fundamentals right), can succeed better at connecting the listener to the music, than an arguably, 'technically superior' system does, in the same way as is achieved when you listen to the guy in the street playing his instrument(s) and singing, though his crappy portable amps, and are emotionally moved by the experience.
The sound does not conform to the technical standards of hi-fi, but regardless of that, the 'musical message' in his performance shines through loud and clear - and so it is with the supposedly 'technically inferior' audio systems (and equipment) I referred to earlier, which despite that, manage to convey the musical message better than their, arguably, 'technically superior' counterparts.
Do you see my point now? :)
This is precisely why it's not ALL about technical specifications and measurements, quite simply because there are some important factors (as explained above), relating to the reproduction of recorded music, which aren't revealed by our current test apparatus. That is why, IMO, building a hi-fi system solely on the basis of how it measures, is a fundamentally flawed approach.
As an aside, the above (in blue) is one of the reasons why the best vintage hi-fi is often preferred by people, compared to most equipment produced today. It may also explain why some people prefer listening to music on vinyl more than on any digital format.
Therefore, ultimately it's still ALL about the music itself, but also it's about appreciating that some systems and equipment make MORE of what they're given to work with, musically, than others. It's a hard one to explain, but hopefully you'll appreciate where I'm coming from.
Thankfully we are not all clones, it seems some members expect others to be like them and are deemed lesser for not being so.
That's not what it's about at all, and my apologies if it's come across that way; it's about trying to help someone else (perhaps of a different mindset) understand how you feel about recorded music, when reproduced by a hi-fi system, not 'correcting' how they do, or making their way feel 'inferior'.
The former is what I've seemingly struggled to get across to some people (although others have grasped it immediately), but that aside, I will always respect the decisions other people make, in terms of what they get out of listening to music on their respective systems, and how they go about it.
Marco.
RoboCopper
20-07-2012, 12:18
Alan,
I'm sure Marco will be along with his views. My personal take is that everyone should enjoy music in their own way. Anyone who doesn't derive enjoyment from music probably shouldn't even be bothering with this forum! You are quite right in that everyone has different buttons that music pushes (I've paraphrased). Unlike yourself I don't listen to lyrics, probably due to dyslexia and my thinking more in pictures than words. I treat vocals as an instrument. Friends of mine will say how meaningful a song was, whereas I'd need to read the lyric sheet to get it. We're all different and individual - I just hope we all find enjoyment and pleasure from music and even tinkering with systems too for some.
I am absolutely the same as you m8 :)
No, I do never listen to lyrics, I even find them distracting regardless of how good lyrics are. And I discover that they are good when I read lyrics from the internet, cover or book. It is more often that bad lyrics are "glued" to my ear, but also admit some good lyrics connect me to the song more.
Still I do not like being myself caught trying to read/listen to lyrics, I rather enjoy in music 100%.
And yes, voice is an instrument.
I definitely do not mix pleasure (music) and words.
Music is heaven made, lyrics man do...:concertina:
I love reactions of others when I tell them that I do not pay attention to lyrics at all.
We are all different and I would never want to change for someone who listens to lyrics :)
Alan,
For your reference, I've edited my earlier reply (post #410), so please re-read it, as it may now make better sense. Cheers! :)
Marco.
Maybe Marco is right and the way our brains are wired makes empathetic discussions about such nebulous concepts difficult and prone to misinterpretation.
I make a very marked distinction between the replay equipment and the music.
I wont say this is correct or even desirable given the listening experience should possibly blend the this distinction in order to present the illusion of listening to music instead of listening to music played through a system, it’s just the way my mind works.
I have to point out, this doesn’t make me a bad man, an objectivists, or bereft of emotion, or an equipment loving, measurement obsessed person who doesn’t have any real appreciation of music. ;)
I’ll spare you all any bleating about my love of music and dance as evidence of my more emotional side. :D
I also have to agree with those here who make the point that the “better” the system, the more believable this illusion is. What I can’t agree with is the suggestion that if I was to hear what gets described as a truly great system my inability to blur the distinction between system and music would be instantly remedied or, that the way my brain is wired gives the slightest indication of the sonic presentation of my system.
It really isn’t that I don’t “get” the views and arguments that get put forward by some of the obviously passionate enthusiasts of the subjective persuasion; it’s that I don’t necessarily agree with them.
I would like to quote Rod Elliot, a guy I’ve followed for a number of years now and whose views I have a great deal of respect for. This is the conclusion to these two linked articles.
http://sound.westhost.com/whatis.htm
http://sound.westhost.com/whatis2.htm
I’ve highlighted a section
3.0 Conclusion
The dream of a system that is 'dead flat' (in frequency response) is not necessarily a good idea, since it is likely that it will be far less accurate than expected for a great many recordings. While technical excellence is always a good thing, it is unwise to place that above all else, and even less wise to assume that ever greater levels of excellence will lead to ever greater enjoyment.
What of the average person (non-audiophile) who wants a really good system? There is precious little available catering to that market at present, and the choices are limited to the department store offerings (often with speaker boxes that look like something from outer space - and sound like it too!), or they can go and argue with the sales-thing at a high-end audio outlet, who will try to convince them that they don't want (or need) tone controls, balance controls, X-Bass or any of that "rubbish". Well, guess what? They do want them - all of them (well, most anyway). Will they use them with a good system? Probably not - initially they will all be used (usually radically), but after a while they will adjust and learn to listen to all of the music, and not just the bass. If it turns out that they do listen with the bass right up, then again, that is their right - it is their system, after all.
The purpose of a sound system in your home is for one thing only - to listen to music (and movie soundtracks, of course). Whether your system is optimal from a purist's perspective is immaterial. If you enjoy the sound, then you have a system that is perfect from your perspective. If others enjoy it too, then so much the better. The idea is for you to put together a system for yourself and (perhaps) your family - not other people. Should others in your household prefer a different sound, then there are two choices ... either you have two or more systems for different sounds, or use a system that can be tailored to suit each listener, or modified at will to suit classical music one session, rock the next, or tweaked further to suit the DVD currently playing.
The bottom line is that any sound system's ultimate purpose is for the enjoyment of music - not to follow the latest trend, or as a test vehicle for the latest magic stone, newest speaker leads or pure silver interconnects, but to enjoy music. Period.
Once you are in the position of listening for flaws in the system, you are no longer listening to the music - certainly you hear the sounds, but if you are so interested in the reproduction you can no longer concentrate on the music itself. You may use test instruments to analyse the response, phase alignment, spectral decay and distortion of your system, but if, after all of that, it still sounds good - who cares?
What of SET (Single Ended Triode) amplifiers and other systems that introduce often quite high levels of distortion? If this is what the listener likes to hear, then that is his prerogative, but it means that all music will be subjected to the same distortion. This may sound very nice with some recordings but revolting with others - again, limiting one's choice rather drastically. However, if this is what the owner wants, then fine. Such owners should resist the temptation to insist that others follow their path to 'nirvana' - most people don't want and don't need distortion. I consider SET amplifiers and their ilk to be "effects units". For those who like the effect, fine, but don't try to tell others that you have a hi-fi, because that's not the case.
It really doesn’t matter whether people approve of my approach to audio, or choose to believe I am in some way bereft of emotion; this is where I am after some 40 years of a passionate interest in both music and audio. It’s not that I don’t enjoy music, or that I’m an objectivist, or even too dense to understand the many opposing views put forward.
It’s simply that I’m at a different point in the journey and my views are bound to reflect this. When it comes to recorded audio my main interest these days is the process.
I hope this helps to compensate for any inability to get my opinion accross.
Hi John,
I agree with a lot of what is written in that article, and would consider most of it very good advice, so thanks for sharing it with us :)
What I can’t agree with is the suggestion that if I was to hear what gets described as a truly great system my inability to blur the distinction between system and music would be instantly remedied...
Indeed. Thing is, that's not what is being suggested. What's being suggested is the most realistic realisation of what's written below:
I also have to agree with those here who make the point that the “better” the system, the more believable this illusion is.
You are rather prone to exaggerating the point your 'opponent' is making, shweety!
It really isn’t that I don’t “get” the views and arguments that get put forward by some of the obviously passionate enthusiasts of the subjective persuasion; it’s that I don’t necessarily agree with them.
Sure, but the trouble is, the words on the screen, which form your reply, often show little evidence of you having understood the argument you were presented with ;)
Marco.
I think the two of you should get a room... :D
I think the two of you should get a room... :D
Maybe we should Dave but I have a sneaking suspicion we may end up rampaging around the local shopping mall smashing peoples mobile phones, equip ourselves with any projectile capable equipment Marco may have and embark on a celebrity killing spree before eloping to Italy or Spain to grow grapes and olives and relax in the sunshine. ;)
Sounds about right! :D
Marco.
I have to point out, this doesn’t make me a bad man, an objectivists, or bereft of emotion, or an equipment loving, measurement obsessed person who doesn’t have any real appreciation of music.
As I used the word bereft in the context of emotional response to recorded music I expect I'm having your finger pointed at me! :peace:
I don't know how you really respond to recorded music but the words you typed seemed to say you don't derive emotion from recorded music.....I think the statements were always about recorded music. So you weren't being dissed as totally unemotional. And it was you who brought up your sex life. :ner:
bobbasrah
20-07-2012, 19:20
....... And it was you who brought up your sex life. :ner:
....probably using string.....:eek:
PS - Sorry, couldn't resist John.....
But Nat......the experience of joy is an emotion. I think if you try to scientifically dissect emotions you're going down a path where pleasure is just a combination of chemicals. It is....but it's better for most humans to live with mystical ideals.
Which is where it's all symantics!
When people talk about hearing the emotion of the music coming through are they just talking about that they are experiencing joy because they happen to like the music or just in a good mood?
I don't think so. When people talk about emotion with music and hifi it is used in a different context to the word emotion in general!
I was using the word in a more appropriate way that differenciates emotion IN the music to every single emotion that humans experience (as most often emotion is nothing to do with their hifi or music in that later context). How do we otherwise differenciate from feeling emotion because of the hifi/music or we're just in a good mood in general?
If we can't differenciate that because we're not self-aware of what is causing the emotion, then how can we decide on hifi that best suits us?
Might just be that going to the gym before listening to music is the more powerful influence and therefore better to spend the money on gym membership than the hifi..
See what I mean?
Of course our mood influences emotion.
We have to use experience to discern what are worthwhile system changes that enhance emotion and its perception. Some people use drugs or alcohol for this......
I must point out that 'differentiate' has a 't' and not a 'c', before it drives me mad!!
Carry on, daftees :D
Marco.
As I used the word bereft in the context of emotional response to recorded music I expect I'm having your finger pointed at me! :peace:
I don't know how you really respond to recorded music but the words you typed seemed to say you don't derive emotion from recorded music.....I think the statements were always about recorded music. So you weren't being dissed as totally unemotional. And it was you who brought up your sex life. :ner:
No worries Clive. I suppose one of the advantages of being bereft of emotion is one doesn’t easily take offense, sulk, or hold grudges. :ner:
:peace:
On a more serious note…
Tbh 80% of the “music” I have on my hard drives is crap. It may not have been crap at some point in its life, but once the studio engineers have done their bit using mics with limited range in the wrong places, or the wrong mics, the mixing console has done its bit, the recording engineer has added his or her set of effects etc etc, I personally find it hard to recognize it as music. What I’ve got is a hard drive full of technical effects.
This doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy listening to them or that some recordings aren’t better than others. However, none of them sound anything like live or “real” music to me. It really doesn’t matter what I play them on, the shortcomings of recorded music are still apparent. The better the replay chain, more often than not, the more obvious the deficiencies are.
This is what I understand as Marco’s point about a musically engaging system not necessarily equating to a system that measures perfectly.
I completely accept this; my system is set up with deliberate deviation from measurably perfect because that’s what I find most pleasant to listen too given the appalling standard of the source.
But to my ears the very process of recording music just seems to suck the soul out of it to a greater or lesser extent. :(
To my ears, some electronic and amplified music fares better; it was a mass of distortion to start with so a bit more doesn’t make a lot of difference. :D
When it comes to the vast majority of classical and “un-amplified” music it doesn’t matter how good the replay system is, I hear a product, not music.
Back to my clone question, no matter how well the cloning process is carried out would you still be able to make an emotional connection with a clone assuming of course that what I will call the soul of the “real” person cannot be cloned?
Okay, a rather dramatic analogy I’ll grant you but hopefully it illustrates my difficulty in making an emotional connection to recorded music.
@ Bob
pfft, string is old school mate. They got science and chemicals these days.:lol:
John, most modern music does not do it for me either. The really special recordings I very much enjoy tend to be 50's jazz, simply recorded and played by a band all at one time and in the same room. I agree the recording process has screwed a lot of music.
I would like to quote Rod Elliot, a guy I’ve followed for a number of years now and whose views I have a great deal of respect for. This is the conclusion to these two linked articles.
.
take both you and rod are not into Set amplifiers then John...
rod also wrote this which i found some what contradictory
Quoting THD (Total Harmonic Distortion + noise) is a pointless exercise if the waveform of the distortion component is not disclosed (which it generally is not). Two amplifiers having apparently identical amounts of distortion can sound very different indeed, and this has led to THD measurements being declared 'useless'. Provided you know what kind of distortion is present, it is generally easy to make a prediction as to whether it will sound "good" or "bad". Solid state amplifiers with 1% crossover (or notch) distortion sound unquestionably bad, while a valve amp with 1% 2nd harmonic distortion will sound good (especially by comparison).
it has long been understood that up 5% 2nd harmonic in not audiable
but just a fraction of odd harmonics can really spoil things..
triodes produce next to nothing of odd order distortions, and in use should sound very clean...
and there is also no corrective feedback messing up the sound or that grey tone of most transistor jobs..
just less watts... which make speakers more of a challenge and usually more expensive
its seem measurements are not everything in audio...
which was the main point of the thread back at the start
I must point out that 'differentiate' has a 't' and not a 'c', before it drives me mad!!
Carry on, daftees :D
Marco.
Hehe. Now that you feel better for having pointed it out, I'll carry on as before.
Artistic licence, softens the both the visual appearance of the word and its sound: more mellow, rounded, coveys the intended emotion better - it spelled that way is subjectively pleasing despite not being 'technically correct'.
Can't stand word objectivists! What a rigid, cold, uninvolving world they must inhabbit.
Just teasing.. :lol:
Back to my clone question, no matter how well the cloning process is carried out would you still be able to make an emotional connection with a clone assuming of course that what I will call the soul of the “real” person cannot be cloned?
John, I don't understand the relevance of that, given that what you're describing above is an entirely different thing, certainly to what I'm talking about.
To remind you of that, here's what I wrote earlier:
Going back to the issue of 'emotional connection', in relation to music, how many of us here have returned home from work in a really bad mood, after having had a crap day, sat down, played our favourite music on our system, and immediately felt the stress and tension melt away? I certainly have!
If that experience isn't as a result of having achieved an emotional connection with your favourite music, then I don't know what is. Now, you might argue that you'd get the same effect from switching your transistor radio on and listening to your favourite music station, but the point is that a really good hi-fi system, playing your favourite music, should take that experience to an altogether higher level.
Have you never once in your life experienced what I've highlighted above? Furthermore, can you relate or not to what I've expressed in the second paragraph?
Marco.
John, is one of your issues that the music you want to listen to happens to be recorded poorly so sounds compressed, flat yet sharp at the same time etc etc? I listen to a fair bit of modernish music but I find there's a connection that older recordings are more likely to achieve. I really do think a good vinyl setup helps here too.
John, is one of your issues that the music you want to listen to happens to be recorded poorly so sounds compressed, flat yet sharp at the same time etc etc?
I suspect that's one of the problems, Clive. If the majority of music John listens to is of the type that just makes him want to dance, then it's unlikely he's ever going to extract a 'deeper' feeling from it. Perhaps John doesn't have any 'serious' music in his collection?
I'm not particularly emotionally connected listening to dance or heavy rock music, but play some superbly recorded, stripped back, jazz, classical, vocal or acoustic music, where the arrangements are simple, but exquisitely performed, and the lyrics poignant, heartfelt and beautifully sung, and it can move me to tears.
Perhaps John just doesn't listen to that type of music?
Marco.
I'm absolutely with you on the types of music Marco. Let's see what John fesses up to!
What Hi Fi has done is make me more critical if anything and in my late twenties I got to the point that I just coulodn't stand listening to classical music on a Hi Fi any more and still cant which is a shame because I adore live classical but I just cant get my brain to fill in the missing bits on a Hi Fi.
Interesting. I don't find that at all. Curiously, I find CD as a format more suited to classical music. I go to lots of classical concerts and I never find I have to 'fill in the holes' when listening at home. In fact, very often, I gain more insight at home because live venues can often sound murky and under-powered; think the Albert Hall, for instance. Not the greatest sound in the world but it makes up for it in sheer presence.
Classics push many systems hard but if the music moves you a little hardness here or compression there doesn't get in the way.
Yes indeed, and in my opinion choral music pushes systems the hardest. Getting it to sound like massed voices and not a homogeneous mess is quite a feat. It's very dependent on the recording, too.
take both you and rod are not into Set amplifiers then John...
Dunno Steve. I've never owned a SET amp and dont know much about them.
John, I don't understand the relevance of that, given that what you're describing above is an entirely different thing, certainly to what I'm talking about.
To remind you of that, here's what I wrote earlier:
Have you never once in your life experienced what I've highlighted above? Furthermore, can you relate or not to what I've expressed in the second paragraph?
Marco.
It’s complicated Marco. It’s not the best analogy either. There is also the problem of semantics and degree.
Having written that, the answer is yes, I have experienced that.
But, I have also experienced the exact opposite.
I don’t think I’ve written anywhere, at least I hope not, that I don’t make any emotional connection with recorded music. What I've tried to convey is that I find recorded music a very poor second to live.
It’s quite difficult to adequately explain my view without writing pages of philosophical stuff.
I’m sure I’ve written a lot of this before but I’ll try again. It will be long and dull I expect and I don’t expect many to agree with me. It is however something I feel is important so I’ll make the effort.
I’m off to Bristol Harbour Festival in a bit to listen to live music and mix with the great unwashed. :D
John, is one of your issues that the music you want to listen to happens to be recorded poorly so sounds compressed, flat yet sharp at the same time etc etc? I listen to a fair bit of modernish music but I find there's a connection that older recordings are more likely to achieve. I really do think a good vinyl setup helps here too.
I dont know about it necessarily being older recordings that sound more like music to my ears Clive.
I've had a decent vinyl set up and no, for me it just ain't the answer; it goes way deeper than the medium.
Yes, I listen to a lot of dance music, mostly funk, a fair amount of "pop" recent and older.
I have very little classical music, not because I dont like it, exactly the opposite in fact. I just can't tolerate the complete lack of emotion I feel from recorded classical when compared to attending a live concert and thats before the engineers turned a quite magical event into a product.
......
it has long been understood that up 5% 2nd harmonic in not audiable
but just a fraction of odd harmonics can really spoil things..
triodes produce next to nothing of odd order distortions, and in use should sound very clean...
More of a guide than an absolute Steve....it's audible but up to 5% its deemed as not being objectionable...put forward by HiFIWorld as far as I recall, for third it's about 1%
Yes, I listen to a lot of dance music, mostly funk, a fair amount of "pop" recent and older.
You said in another post your emotion comments are more about degree but given the music you listen to I would probably also have difficulty with getting deeply emotionally involved too. Here are some examples of artists that work for, and of course this is very personal, I'm not saying the same music would work for you:
Charles Mingus
Cannonball Adderely
Coleman Hawkins
Sonny Rollins
Stan Getz
John Coltrane
Dave Brubeck
Thelonius Monk
Kari Bremnes
Madelaine Peyroux
early Joss Stone
early Tracy Chapman
Pink Floyd - ie their tracks that take you on a journey
Dire Strait (not all of it!) - Telegraph Road is another "journey"
These are just a few examples. You can see that as the music become more recent I get more picky. There is classical too though this takes up less of my listening.
Interesting. I don't find that at all. Curiously, I find CD as a format more suited to classical music. I go to lots of classical concerts and I never find I have to 'fill in the holes' when listening at home. In fact, very often, I gain more insight at home because live venues can often sound murky and under-powered; think the Albert Hall, for instance. Not the greatest sound in the world but it makes up for it in sheer presence.
I must confess Martin I just don’t understand how you don’t have to fill in the gaps, so to speak.
I’m a bit jealous. :)
Just from a technical viewpoint.
When sat in front of a full orchestra, or choir, at a live venue, the position you sit heavily influences which sounds reach you at a particular time.
A recording replayed on a stereo wipes this out. The scale of the whole event gets compressed.
A recording may allow you to concentrate better on individual instruments, which listening to a live concert can sometimes be difficult due to listening position and sound/venue interactions. To me that’s a bit like filming race and then examining sections frame by frame. Yes it’s an interesting experience but the very fact that you notice stuff in the frame by frame reconstruction that completely passed you by when watching live illustrates a marked difference between what you actually experienced at the time the real event was taking place.
Then there are all those little events that you sometimes hear because of where you are positioned that either weren’t within a particular microphones range, or get edited out at the studio. The first violinist knocking his bow against his chair, the sound wave from a harp after a deep note has been plucked bouncing off a wall behind you etc.
Then there are all those things that you just can’t record that belong to the fact that you are there; a whole range of vibrations from people, building, emotions…., not to mention it gives me a reason to dress up a bit and interact with my fellow humans beings.
I don’t’ know Martin, I really can’t put it all into words. :scratch::scratch:
As you mention, the sheer presence of the event often makes up for any shortfall in the acoustics and perhaps this is important for my brain. :)
I’m lucky in having Bath Cathedral quite close and they put on some fantastic concerts and a lot of them are free. I tend to go about once a week. I just love the organ recitals they put on. There are a couple of other small local venues where they regularly put on folk, blues and chamber music so I’m not deprived really. :)
I suspect that's one of the problems, Clive. If the majority of music John listens to is of the type that just makes him want to dance, then it's unlikely he's ever going to extract a 'deeper' feeling from it. Perhaps John doesn't have any 'serious' music in his collection?
I'm not particularly emotionally connected listening to dance or heavy rock music, but play some superbly recorded, stripped back, jazz, classical, vocal or acoustic music, where the arrangements are simple, but exquisitely performed, and the lyrics poignant, heartfelt and beautifully sung, and it can move me to tears.
Perhaps John just doesn't listen to that type of music?
Marco.
John has lots of "serious" music in his collection; it just doesn’t reduce him to an emotional wreck when he listens to it. ;)
Next, there is no problem, at least not for John. :)
Dance music is serious music. People were dancing to a beat long before they decide it was so much more “civilized” to sit down a listen to complex compositions performed by a group of people who didn’t write the stuff and interpreted the composer’s emotions from a mathematically based written score etc etc………..and then spend hours in prim little arty groups eloquently discussing the more subtle nuances of so and so’s interpretation of a particular passage. :ner:
It may well be fashionable, discerning and considered tasteful now, but I’ll bet you any money you like if the technology that makes such music possible disappears for some reason the first bit of music you are likely to hear after this event will be something based on someone banging out a beat on some type of drum and people will get up and dance.:gig:
Beat and rhythm are the roots of music; notes, melodies and harmonies came later I would argue although no one can prove either.
Much more of this refinement, discernment and acceptance of constructed entertainment that I would argue is helping to keep us locked in our germ free ever so tastefully decorated prison boxes, rather than mixing with the great unwashed and mindful of our basic needs and we are likely to forget how to wipe our own arses. We’ll all be fucked then. :rolleyes:
I think I’m going to highjack Mr McDonald’s phrase.
I’m going to change it from “Go large sir?” to “Go live sir?” :D
All those details you enjoy, you've got it worse than an audiophile!
When sat in front of a full orchestra, or choir, at a live venue, the position you sit heavily influences which sounds reach you at a particular time.
A recording replayed on a stereo wipes this out. The scale of the whole event gets compressed.
I agree completely with your first point, John, even if I don't experience the second. In fact, my live concert experiences have ranged from the astounding (Festival Hall, centre stalls about six rows up, SImon Rattle conducting Mahler 2), to dreadful (Albert Hall, up in the gallery near the organ). So I guess it's silly to talk about classical concerts as if they were all great experiences.
As for scale, I guess I'm lucky as my system does BIG scale just wonderfully. It also resolves squeaking chairs, bows hitting stands, pianists and conductors humming, underground trains - all those cues that make it sound real!
I used to like sitting up near the organ at the RFH on Proms concerts. Fugg the stereo, you still got the proper tone of the instruments. Amazing how close Quad ESL's were (57's and 63's - not sure if the later ones are quite right here) and how utterly wrong Linn speakers were back then - in timbre reproduction certainly...
I agree completely with your first point, John, even if I don't experience the second. In fact, my live concert experiences have ranged from the astounding (Festival Hall, centre stalls about six rows up, SImon Rattle conducting Mahler 2), to dreadful (Albert Hall, up in the gallery near the organ). So I guess it's silly to talk about classical concerts as if they were all great experiences.
As for scale, I guess I'm lucky as my system does BIG scale just wonderfully. It also resolves squeaking chairs, bows hitting stands, pianists and conductors humming, underground trains - all those cues that make it sound real!
I think you've missed my point a bit Martin.
The point i was trying to make is so much of the experience never reaches the CD or whatever. It's killed either by poor recording techniques, or at the mixing desk more often than not.
As for the scale, well you would need a listening room as large as the venue.
However, if it's good enough to convince you I'm good with that.
John has lots of "serious" music in his collection; it just doesn’t reduce him to an emotional wreck when he listens to it.
Lol... Neither does it do that to Marco.
However, listening to music on a system that gets the fundamentals of recorded music reproduction as right as possible will always more likely engender that response in me, if the music is right, than the same heard on a transistor radio, or a 'transparent' system (haha) built solely on inconclusive technical measurements.
Oh, and in terms of your emotional connection with music, I think we've more than established now that it's alive and kicking! ;)
Never shun the existence of feelings that make you human, simply to appear as logical or rational.
Marco.
It's killed either by poor recording techniques, or at the mixing desk more often than not.
I don't disagree - try early 1980s DG recordings, for instance. As dry as a dry thing with all the excitement squeezed out of them. Thankfully, there are many great recordings out there too.
The main reason why I put so much energy is to get me as close to the live event as possible,in my view this is something that can never truly be reached but the illusion of this should be convincing. So for me the music has to played loud I want to feel the kick drums have plenty of scale and a huge open sound
I totally agree with every word of that, John. It's all about the realism of the illusion. I can just imagine the scale and huge open sound you get from your system, and you've heard mine....
For some reason, and it would be interesting to find out *what*, the illusion John's getting doesn't seem to be as convincing to him as what we're hearing is to us, and I'm not just talking here about classical music.
That's why I'd love to hear John's system, and for him to pop up and listen to mine, so that we can both judge the realism of our respective musical illusions, on our own terms. It would certainly help put paid to some of the misunderstandings on the forum, as we'd both have a much better idea of where each of us were coming from :)
Marco.
Interesting post from Bob Atherton, on pfm, which for me sums things up nicely:
I am now 55 years old and have been surrounded by music and musicians for nearly all my life. I know how music can move me and I know what I like to hear. I am more than happy to understand that my preference in musical reproduction involves some sort of built in distortion. I would personally view this distortion as musicality and emotion.
Again I know that the science lead enthusiast here will say that hi-fi can’t add musicality and emotion and again I agree with this. What I personally feel is that some ‘transparent’ hi-fi actually strips and bleaches out the latent musicality and emotion that is within the recording.
A friend of mine who works in the hi-fi industry has often said that it is pretty easy to make things read better but that will often lead to the product sounding worse. He believes, as I do, that there is a skill set beyond the science to unlock the musicality and emotion that is latent within recordings.
The only way that I can describe these latent emotions is that there are a couple of recordings that if the system is set up correctly and using the right equipment will actually make me cry and make the hairs stand up on my neck. On other equipment there is not the same access to the emotion that is latent. It's like I hearing it all but I'm not feeling it all.
I’m quite prepared to believe that all the equipment that I have heard these recordings on would be transparent by today’s standards, yet they deliver the soul of the music in different ways.
I can prove none of the above but I know what I know.
Indeed. The bit in bold is exactly what some of us have been saying here.
Marco.
Yes our sytems are quite similar in how they present sound, with lots of energy and scale. they take no prisioners
I am not into the polite set up but must has no fatique as you know I can listen to for hours
Mr Kipling
22-07-2012, 09:56
Thought this might be worth a read: http://stereophile.com/content/ed-meitner-audio-maverick
I knew of him from his platter-less deck, but there's more too him than that, it seems.
Kind Regards
Stephen
I totally agree with every word of that, John. It's all about the realism of the illusion. I can just imagine the scale and huge open sound you get from your system, and you've heard mine....
For some reason, and it would be interesting to find out *what*, the illusion John's getting doesn't seem to be as convincing to him as what we're hearing is to us, and I'm not just talking here about classical music.
That's why I'd love to hear John's system, and for him to pop up and listen to mine, so that we can both judge the realism of our respective musical illusions, on our own terms. It would certainly help put paid to some of the misunderstandings on the forum, as we'd both have a much better idea of where each of us were coming from :)
Marco.
I’m not sure this would be a good idea unless you want to be the one to explain to your wife why we are on the run from the police and you’re pressing grapes and I’m picking olives. :eek::lol:
I think what is causing some of the misunderstanding is while it seems many here believe the system is the deciding factor in how this musical illusion is presented regarding its believability, I have come to accept over the years that it is the person that listens to it that either does or doesn’t accept the illusion. The system itself is to a greater or lesser extent is irrelevant.
It’s not a question of people having better aural acuity, or more revealing systems, or any of the other rather meaningless terms used to describe our aural experiences; it’s how we, the individual perceive the world around us.
Of course, this makes things rather difficult when it comes to something as subjective as our perception of audio because if there was any consensus of what is in fact best, one would assume we would all have very similar systems and this is obviously not the case.
I came to accept this many years ago, which is one of the reasons why I tend not to make purchase upgrades, go and listen to other peoples kit, go to Hi Fi shows etc etc.
I know what I’m going to hear; I’m going to hear a stereo and after a certain level of performance all I’m going to hear is possibly a different flavour, not better or worse, just different.
This of course is heading into dangerously objective territory and an invitation to get all those you must be deaf or have a crap stereo comments. The thing is neither is true. I just don’t approach stereo sound reproduction from the same point as many here and it doesn’t matter how many stereos I hear or how hard one group or another tries to get me to believe differently.
The problem is for my when it comes to audio boards is I’m not in either camp; I’m a moderate if you like, I have a foot in both camps and while (as I have already mentioned and what is partially responsible for this recent more v less emotion spat) I obviously love music, when it comes to stereo sound reproduction my main interest is in the process and not the music……..what’s not to like?
I might argue that my willingness to use both measurement and my ears and that while by no means expert and of course I write some nonsense just like everyone else, and having some grasp on the technical principles behind audio reproduction gives me a greater degree of freedom from bias and less of a propensity to exaggerate when it comes to equipment performance……..but I wont. :eyebrows:
I think what is causing some of the misunderstanding is while it seems many here believe the system is the deciding factor in how this musical illusion is presented regarding its believability, I have come to accept over the years that it is the person that listens to it that either does or doesn’t accept the illusion. The system itself is to a greater or lesser extent is irrelevant.
It’s not a question of people having better aural acuity, or more revealing systems, or any of the other rather meaningless terms used to describe our aural experiences; it’s how we, the individual perceive the world around us.
It seems to me that if this were the case you could simply imagine a performance and not need a system or any software at all. Certainly it saves a lot of cost and now that we have care in the community you could even remain in your own home. Not you personally....I'm just just taking the logic to a conclusion. :wetkipper:
It seems to me that if this were the case you could simply imagine a performance and not need a system or any software at all. Certainly it saves a lot of cost and now that we have care in the community you could even remain in your own home. Not you personally....I'm just just taking the logic to a conclusion. :wetkipper:
Right Clive, because you’re being very naughty and silly, I’m going to make you spend the next week reading here. :spank:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
btw, how’s the file based audio performing these days. Is it still performing as well as your multi thousand pound vinyl set up? :closed:
Right Clive, because you’re being very naughty and silly, I’m going to make you spend the next week reading here. :spank:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
btw, how’s the file based audio performing these days. Is it still performing as well as your multi thousand pound vinyl set up? :closed:
Thanks, I need something to do while I'm away tomorrow....I'll enjoy imagining music whilst I travel. :)
As for the file audio - it's doing many things that my vinyl setups do, soundstage, imaging, lack of old-fashioned digital artifacts etc. However it doesn't quite deliver that last ounce of emotion which I imagine the record decks have. :cool: It's close but there's still something which differentiates them - but I don't know what it is!
Some of you chaps need to take a few months away from music in all forms, live, reproduced or whatever. I really believe, and from personal experience here, that it would re-align opinions and feelings about reproduced music and maybe also the gear that reproduces it..... Oh yes indeedy :)
Lodgesound
22-07-2012, 17:22
This thread has been a fascinating read with all the opinions from all the various ends of the spectrum having interesting and valid opinions throughout.
There is only one point that needs making really which has not been expressed - you chaps are putting far too much faith in master recordings it seems that you have never heard.
Master recordings are good - stunning in fact if we are talking the vintage in which most of the views here are being referenced to however it is important to point out a key point.
What you hear on a vinyl disc is not what is present on a master recording. It is compressed - it has to be in order that your needle is'nt literally propelled out of the groove in a vertical direction due to mechanical modulation.
Now this "compression" and how it is applied represents the "black art" that was and still is to a certain extent vinyl mastering. It is applied by a very experienced engineer during the actual cutting process using equipment that is quite high-end (but not ridiculously so) in a sympathetic manner. It is this compression that gives vinyl it's characteristic "warmth" and is historically and still loved by the Human ear.
The result was and still is a format which is coloured to a huge extent and at the same time incredibly listenable. If you want to hear an analogue master recording find someone with a studio tape machine (not a nice looking domestic one - trust me there is a whole universe of difference) get them to plug it in to the input of any one of your home systems and play a master recording.
I imagine your emotions would be mixed but that the clarity, presence and impact would strike extremely hard.
All "masters" have to start somewhere and that is nearly always with one person's ears on machinery calibrated to a very fixed set of quite inflexible parameters.
The "interest" factor of this hobby I believe is in the almost infinite variables one can apply in the home when using an analogue replay source such as vinyl. Just bear in mind that the standard to which all recordings are made have to start somewhere and you would be quite surprised if you knew where some of the recordings that you treasure and regard most highly originated.
It is this compression that gives vinyl it's characteristic "warmth" and is historically and still loved by the Human ear.
Of course master tapes are amazing but.....I can't agree that the emotion I've been talking about is artificial warmth or even warmth at all. My better deck (the Salvation) has a tonal balance that's virtually identical to my file-based audio setup. It really isn't about the sound being "nice", it's much deeper than that.
What you hear on a vinyl disc is not what is present on a master recording. It is compressed - it has to be in order that your needle is'nt literally propelled out of the groove in a vertical direction due to mechanical modulation.
Now this "compression" and how it is applied represents the "black art" that was and still is to a certain extent vinyl mastering. It is applied by a very experienced engineer during the actual cutting process using equipment that is quite high-end (but not ridiculously so) in a sympathetic manner. It is this compression that gives vinyl it's characteristic "warmth" and is historically and still loved by the Human ear.
The result was and still is a format which is coloured to a huge extent and at the same time incredibly listenable. If you want to hear an analogue master recording find someone with a studio tape machine (not a nice looking domestic one - trust me there is a whole universe of difference) get them to plug it in to the input of any one of your home systems and play a master recording.
I imagine your emotions would be mixed but that the clarity, presence and impact would strike extremely hard.
All "masters" have to start somewhere and that is nearly always with one person's ears on machinery calibrated to a very fixed set of quite inflexible parameters.
The "interest" factor of this hobby I believe is in the almost infinite variables one can apply in the home when using an analogue replay source such as vinyl. Just bear in mind that the standard to which all recordings are made have to start somewhere and you would be quite surprised if you knew where some of the recordings that you treasure and regard most highly originated.
Having heard good analogue and digital masters played on a good domestic playback system (as well as ATC and B&W's in a pro situation), I found it put me off vinyl for twenty odd years. Only a few spats with Marco discussing much as you've expressed so eloquently above and me eating huge dolops of humble pie (:lol:) have I put opinion aside and started enjoying my records again. Would you also agree that many records (older pop ones mainly I think) were created with the "vinyl sound" as the finished master, where the tape master of these recordings may not be that good if listened to on their own? I'm not talking about pre-eq'd masters made specifically for quick lacquer cutting, but actual iffy recordings where the vinyl would blend and smooth the raw edge of the originals (old Motown comes to mind here)..
Yeah, Motown were famous for using a frequency range AM radios of the day would reproduce. So play an original Motown on your hi-fi - it'll sound somewhat like an AM radio! No bass or treble and that Motown sound.
Daniel Quinn
22-07-2012, 19:47
okay , another fly in the ointment.:)
first a confession . I love passionate people with ideas and this thread is full of them . But there's two much look at me aint i clever , my cock is massive pomposity.
People who think they know the truth have a compelling desire to convince the world , there is nothing you can do about this its human socialisation and it matters not if you try to subvert it {all right wingers are arseholes} it will find its way to the surface. :)
So in theoretical debates such as this , which i love even though some don't , there needs to be more intellectual rigour, what's the point if your not going to change anybody's mind .
you can't just spout all you know then spend the next's 44 posts telling your opponent he didnt understand what you were saying.
define terms, define what's at issue , define language , define the arguements.
in essence i make a plea for a more legal approach to argument. The finest website in the world is www.bailii.org , this websites publishes all the judgements of the higher courts in England and Wales and it is a model of excellence. arguement a is considered against arguement b , fully and comprehensively to arrive at judgement c .
there is no obfuscation, partial representation, rhetoric or bullying. each side puts it best foot forward and a decision is made . Its not look at the size of my cock, its there is a dispute can it be resolved under the terms of the law ?
also its argued in basic language which can not be misunderstood , not flowery adjectives which mean a different thing to each reader. {this does not means its not complex , just read }
17 years ago when i was an a level student , i was told by my lecturer in Oldham, when I was trying to understand dialectical materialism , that if you cant explain it to your granny , then your talking shite, you dont understand it and if that fails the theory is shite.
so lets stop penis waiving and try to reach agreement . :lol:
Lol - what are you like! :lol:
I'm off to "waive" my penis, which should provide some entertainment for, oh, quite a while!! :D
Btw, is there a doctor in the house?
Marco.
What on earth has this got to do with music www.bailii.org :scratch:
But there's two much look at me aint i clever , my cock is massive pomposity.
define terms, define what's at issue , define language , define the arguements
so lets stop penis waiving and try to reach agreement . :lol:
This is a forum, not a court of law, it, this is also a place to discuss subjective views.
Also, you could be more tasteful in your language. It is not at all clever.
I can't help but wonder that William Garrow might have had a lot of fun with this thread... :D
I can't help but wonder that William Garrow might have had a lot of fun with this thread... :D
Shame on Garrow that he didn't propose a system for finding the truth rather than an adversarial system to line laywers pockets.
What on earth has this got to do with music www.bailii.org :scratch:
Bill Bailii?
What you hear on a vinyl disc is not what is present on a master recording. It is compressed - it has to be in order that your needle is'nt literally propelled out of the groove in a vertical direction due to mechanical modulation.
Now this "compression" and how it is applied represents the "black art" that was and still is to a certain extent vinyl mastering. It is applied by a very experienced engineer during the actual cutting process using equipment that is quite high-end (but not ridiculously so) in a sympathetic manner. It is this compression that gives vinyl it's characteristic "warmth" and is historically and still loved by the Human ear.
Now, about this oft trotted out logic for why some think vinyl sounds better than CD....
1) If compression warms up music so much I now understand why MP3s sound so very good, along with the more relevent DR compressed modern (loud) albums. :doh:
2) Comparisons between master tape and vinyl can only be made using a record deck. If that deck were say a Garrard or one on many belt drives, these decks would impart their own signature. If the deck was more like Marco's Techie or my Salvation then I strongly believe you would not find any artificial warmth.
The truth is more that a high quality tape deck sounds bloody marvelous, couple that with a master tape and you have an unbeatable combination.
What on earth has this got to do with music www.bailii.org :scratch:
A riveting read. Did you catch the section on the topless lady barristers?
Marco.
Drat have to read it again
A riveting read. Did you catch the section on the topless lady barristers?
I couldn't find a topless barrister . . . what about a topless barista?
http://www.nerve.com/files/scanner/2010/01/topless-coffee-shop-reopens.jpg
Brings a whole new meaning to the term, Espresso... :lol:
Wakefield Turntables
23-07-2012, 20:05
I couldn't find a topless barrister . . . what about a topless barista?
http://www.nerve.com/files/scanner/2010/01/topless-coffee-shop-reopens.jpg
The fat apron's not doing it for me :spew:
Brings a whole new dimension to the phrase" Do you want milk with your coffe?", doesn't it? :lol::eek:
/Mike
Thank goodness I always take mine black! :lol:
Nah, you don't know what you're missing... Titty milk leaves a lovely creamy and nutricious skin on top, you can scoop off and chew - yum yum! :eyebrows:
Marco.
I do wonder about you sometimes Marco :lol:
Hehehehe... I worry about myself even more! :bum:
Marco.
Mr Kipling
24-07-2012, 16:51
Anyone know if Starbucks offer this service?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=k89XvfQfTIM
Nah, you don't know what you're missing... Titty milk leaves a lovely creamy and nutricious skin on top, you can scoop off and chew - yum yum! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Titty milk doesn't actually taste very nice - to me at any rate :)
Titty milk doesn't actually taste very nice - to me at any rate :)
Aren't you weaned yet?
Titty milk doesn't actually taste very nice - to me at any rate :)
Do you still get 'bitty' from mummy? :lol: :D
Marco.
Rather than explain what has gone on to Stef I showed him this thread Marco.
This is a summary of his comments.
His view is that ABX and blind listening tests are tools to help people make reliable and efficient decisions regard audible difference between components under a specific set of conditions.
They should not be used in an attempt to resolve what are essentially ideological disputes.
In his profession, (Consulting Engineer to sound studios and the film industry) it is often neither practicable nor cost effective to conduct extended listening tests and the factors that determine the suitability of equipment for this environment are not necessarily those that are applicable to equipment used in a domestic setting.
He also mentioned that given the amount of information available on ABX testing anyone with a serious interest should be able to arrange such tests themselves and anyone with a serious interest in audio should either have their own test equipment, or have access to some, given the very low cost of a simple setup compared to the cost of the equipment being purchased.
His final comment was given the opposing side to this “debate” should have some experience in ABX testing perhaps you should consider approaching them and organize this together.
Blind testing or ABX testing topless girls is no good as I assume you're not allowed to touch them!
I'm not convinced we have ideological differences in play, it's more differing conditions, formats, music and priorities.
Blind testing or ABX testing topless girls is no good as I assume you're not allowed to touch them!
It’s assumptions like this that imo are doing irreparable damage to topless industry. :doh:
Trust your instincts Clive! Not some vague badly conceived notion of social acceptability written by some overzealous legislation obsessed hack.
Failing that, get your wallet out. :eyebrows:
Rather than explain what has gone on to Stef I showed him this thread Marco.
This is a summary of his comments.
His view is that ABX and blind listening tests are tools to help people make reliable and efficient decisions regard audible difference between components under a specific set of conditions.
They should not be used in an attempt to resolve what are essentially ideological disputes.
In his profession, (Consulting Engineer to sound studios and the film industry) it is often neither practicable nor cost effective to conduct extended listening tests and the factors that determine the suitability of equipment for this environment are not necessarily those that are applicable to equipment used in a domestic setting.
He also mentioned that given the amount of information available on ABX testing anyone with a serious interest should be able to arrange such tests themselves and anyone with a serious interest in audio should either have their own test equipment, or have access to some, given the very low cost of a simple setup compared to the cost of the equipment being purchased.
His final comment was given the opposing side to this “debate” should have some experience in ABX testing perhaps you should consider approaching them and organize this together.
So is that a 'no' then, John? :scratch: :D
Hey ho....
Marco.
Trust your instincts Clive! Not some vague badly conceived notion of social acceptability written by some overzealous legislation obsessed hack.
Failing that, get your wallet out. :eyebrows:
Just as long as it's you who shows up in court in my place...
He believes, as I do, that there is a skill set beyond the science to unlock the musicality and emotion that is latent within recordings.
The only way that I can describe these latent emotions is that there are a couple of recordings that if the system is set up correctly and using the right equipment will actually make me cry and make the hairs stand up on my neck. On other equipment there is not the same access to the emotion that is latent. It's like I hearing it all but I'm not feeling it all.
For me, I think that just shows someone who spends too long unconnected from their emotions and then they have to tick a load of boxes with their hifi and suddenly a load of pent-up, unexpressed emotion splurges out.
Almost like using their hifi as an excuse for why they suddenly felt some emotion. "The hifi did it to me! Normally I'm strong and don't show emotion, just like I learned in the school playground and mummy and daddy tought me not to"
Or perhaps they are unused to accessing their emotions and so are confused when they both feel pleasure from the sound AND enjoy the music and intended emotion from the notes and performance (not the sound). Then it's too intense compared to a norm of being relatively emotion-less and so it becomes overwhelming?
Surely if people were truely close to their emotions, people would feel real empathy towards each other and other living things - would be unable to eat meat, would never start ranting about people they hate etc. But you rarely see that..
Instead, you see people on hifi forums at one moment talking about how some piece of music made them cry because their hifi was 'that good' and the next going on about 'cock-punching' people they hate (a whole sub-forum dedicated to it even).
Doesn't quite add up to me..
Lol@ "cock-punching". Sounds like you've been reading Wigwam!
Marco.
Lodgesound
25-07-2012, 13:58
To connect emotionally with a piece of music you merely have to hear it.....it matters not whether it is played on a cheap transistor radio, a car audio system, heard through an open window or played on the most esoteric audio equipment available to Humankind.
Your brain does the "connecting" bit and fills in any gaps that it needs to. I believe in this so completely that I stopped listening to music on high-end equipment and actually started to listen to music again.
I deliberately use very average replay equipment in my home now & gave away/scrapped my old "HiFi".
I get where you're coming from, Stewart, but I don't agree. Sounds a bit like you've taken a step back, due to your disillusionment with "high-end equipment" (for whatever reason), and I'm sorry to hear that.
However, as valid as that situation is for you, it's a totally different situation for others and myself who are absolutely LOVING listening to music on our very carefully chosen "high-end equipment".
Like I've said before, yes I can get the emotional connection you're referring to with music, when listening to it on a transistor radio, or stereo in the car, but the experience is taken to an entirely different level of pleasure, when listening to the same music on my system at home.
However, I guess that whatever works for you, works for you! :cool:
Marco.
So is that a 'no' then, John? :scratch: :D
Hey ho....
Marco.
Taking this to PM Marco.
gave away/scrapped my old "HiFi". :stalks::stalks:
To connect emotionally with a piece of music you merely have to hear it.....it matters not whether it is played on a cheap transistor radio, a car audio system, heard through an open window or played on the most esoteric audio equipment available to Humankind.
Your brain does the "connecting" bit and fills in any gaps that it needs to. I believe in this so completely that I stopped listening to music on high-end equipment and actually started to listen to music again.
I deliberately use very average replay equipment in my home now & gave away/scrapped my old "HiFi".
I agree with you. Many many (if not most) musicians feel the same too and are happy with average hifi because they can get all the emotion from the notes and performance of the musicans that they need.
However, I love the SOUND so much that I'm willing to spend money on chasing the most realistic sounding hifi I can get. I want every nuance of every grating, biting or soft and mellow sound to come across, including spacially.
Combined, it gives perhaps greater pleasure to those who love both sound and the music. But I wouldnt describe that greater pleasure as then being more "emotional" when the word is used as it is normally used in the context hifi.
Most of my friends who are musicians spend their money on musical equipment not HIFI I suggest some of this is also down to different goals
Titty milk doesn't actually taste very nice - to me at any rate :)
Pull the udder one Dave...
Ha bloomin ha.......... :)
Most of my friends who are musicians spend their money on musical equipment not HIFI I suggest some of this is also down to different goals
Good point, John. If you've just splashed out on a Steinway, you're less likely to lash out on a Linn! ;)
Marco.
Good point, John. If you've just splashed out on a Steinway, you're less likely to lash out on a Linn! ;)
Marco.
Very true Marco. After I bought our Steinway model B I did not make another substantial HiFi purchase for 8 years or so! But then,after about 2 years auditioning, I spent quite a lot again...
Frank
hifi_dave
26-07-2012, 18:30
Like I've said before, yes I can get the emotional connection you're referring to with music, when listening to it on a transistor radio, or stereo in the car, but the experience is taken to an entirely different level of pleasure, when listening to the same music on my system at home.
That's exactly what started me on the Hi-Fi trail many, many years ago..:wheniwasaboy:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.