Return to Nirvana.

I know as I've got older my tastes in music have changed and my hearing is not as good as 20 years ago, because of this what I now look for in my system is very different to what it was 20 years ago.

However, my experience has grown over the years and I have a much better appreciation of what makes a good piece of Hi-Fi and how components work and how they work together in synergy...

In fact I can recreate my system except for the turntable from 20 years ago and not only does it sound very different as you would expect but it also sounds inferior...that's not because I now look for a different presentation, its because the component parts don't work together that well and in isolation...introduced into my current system, they still sound inferior....

Hi Dave,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveK

Nope - just seen your quoted post above - must be Steve - therefore my remarks to you are unreservedly withdrawn and re-addressed to Steve.

---

No problem - these things happen. However, can I direct BOTH of you to my earlier reply, which now has even more significance:

Quote:

---

I think you guys are having a little communication problem :)

I can tell, Dave, from what you wrote in your opening post that you didn't mean what Steve has construed; similarly I can tell that Steve didn't mean what you've construed from his reply...

Fun this Internet malarkey, innit? :lol:

Seriously though, I think both of you are being overly defensive of each other, given the nature of past exchanges, and are reading into intent that doesn't exist. I'm sure this will only improve though when you get to know each other better.

Anyway, can we please move on? Dave, if you could do so by answering the hi-fi-related points Steve raised in his reply (if you feel it necessary to do so), that would be much appreciated :cool:

---

Both of you please digest that very carefully if we are to avoid incidents like this in future.

Cheers!

Marco.

I edited Dave's post because I wanted his excellent OP to stay on topic. Perhaps I was a little abrupt at the end of my first reply but Moderation is not usually as capricious as Dave seemed to be making out. I would hardly say the Nirvana thread had been done to death and this fresh insight certainly could have happily been placed on either the existing thread or on a new one to underline the freshness of the perspective.

I then edited his post to try to maintain the integrity of the thread but my editing came in as a double posting with Marco's reply.

The vortex of this teacup tempest then intensified...

Sorry Dave I did not mean to cause offence.

Neal, points of reference do change over time I guess. Progression means raising the bar over time so what thrilled in years past is likely to be underwhelming now, just as a latest upgrade will only be thrilling for a limited time in the fairly near future.

Revisiting my system after a few days away always enables me to appreciate once again the extra detail on offer over music heard through systems in bars, clubs, on portables and in the car but this revived marvel does not last long.

I guess what counts is the integrity of the musical message being maintained as you raise the bar in terms of resolution. This makes all the difference between being blown away by the sonic prowess for a limited period and spending more time listening to more and different types of music thereafter, long after the upgrade novelty has expired.

Surely better equals more insight into the musical message on both an emotional and cerebral level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Toy

Sorry Dave I did not mean to cause offence.

---

Hi Steve,
I'm happy with that - no problems - normal servise returns - onwards and upwards.
Cheers,

Interesting Dave.I believe this ability to shut out extraneous noise is called "Habituation". Works both ways as I understand it-i.e. people used to living in a busy city centre will be unable at first to sleep well in a quiet place in the coutryside-and vice-versa of course.It's amazing what the brain can become used to.I certainly agree that a so-called upgrade may intially sound better just because it is different (Especially if you've spent a lot of money!).The brain of course adjusts over time and you either become used to the new sound and accept it as a new benchmark,or become dissatisfied.I've read that the brain's greatest strength is it's ability to see patterns where none exist-at least initially,but at the same time it's also it's greatest weakness.This can lead to great discoveries,but can also lead us a long way down wrong avenues too.I think this can apply to how we hear audio as much as anything else.Comments?

seeing or hearing patterns that do not exist is a "hallucination" Ali. Not consistent with a normal working brain.

Brain has an infinite power of "imagination or creativity".

I am sure the best piece of upgrade for many would be the next best piece of music. I rather busy myself listening- learning-exploring and moving on, rather than become hide bound (as Barry once said) about getting this right or that right-ad infinitum and so ad nauseum. The point for upgrades in my opinion is to determine- if there is a problem and then try and fix that problem.

If there is no problem to sort out- then rest assured the BRAIN is filling up the gaps- helping achieve the fulfillment music provides at so many levels to so many people.

Sorry don't agree there.For instance,how about the way we see faces in rocks and trees,or patterns where none exist? That's not an hallucination,simply our brain making connections in what we are seeing that are not really there.In the same way,our brains can make leaps of logic in the way of great genius,but some being spectacularly wrong,hence my comment about greatest strength and weakness.I realise it's a bit of an extrapolation to how it affects our perception of music and the equipment it's played on,but still a valid one I feel.Hearing is ultimately a function of the brain after all!

In an unfamiliar situation, the brain will always look for something familiar & emphasise connections to things that don't really have anything to do with each other.

Here's an example.
Have you ever been listening to an mp3 player on random shuffle & thought that its showing a preference for one type of music over another, or one band over another and that it's no longer playing things randomly? I've thought many times, that it was spooky because mine would play one track by say Bob Dylan, then next it would come up with a Dylan cover. Or five songs in a row with a similar theme etc etc.

It truly is random but your brain is looking for connections & because what's playing looks like a pattern forming, it makes the leap to a wrong assumption.

And there's this that I posted way back here:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...ighlight=brain


...........This gets closer to the thing that really intrigues me.

It's all about your ear collecting the information & your brain processing it. Now I'm a strong believer in the power of the brain to perform 'error correction' to a greater or lesser extent.

I often heard it said in relation to speakers with not much deep bass that your brain makes up for what you don't hear. I used to think that was a load of old tosh - now I'm not so sure. Of course the brain can't put the physical thump in your chest that a big speaker can, but maybe it can make you think you heard it.

Now if that's the case, then why shouldn't your brain be able to correct things like imbalances in stereo information like different lengths of cables.

If you need convincing of the power of your brain to process information and apply error correction just like a CD player then you need to read the following paragraph which staggered me & started me thinking about all this stuff..............

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mind.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, it lokos at the wrod as a wlohe and tehn rletaes it to the ohetr wodrs nxet to it.


.............see what I mean?