Yes indeed that's an old chestnut but none the less telling for it.I think we're all on the same page here but just have different ways of expressing it. :)
Printable View
Yes indeed that's an old chestnut but none the less telling for it.I think we're all on the same page here but just have different ways of expressing it. :)
Hi Chris,
I agree and I have been saying that about the brain filling in the gap about the bass deficiency for some time and that is why in a small room a LS3/5A would be as good. The error correcting- is the same as lip reading- surrogate action-or using other cues.
For brain to be able to 'fill in the gaps' the brain has to know that there is something-missing to patch up. Like the example of misplaced letters in a text you have given.
If a cloud formation appears to give an image of an object- you can photograph is and show what you mean-the likeness would be close. We are talking of perceived similarity and not "what was not there".
Returning to Hi Fi or to be specific sound reproduction- once we move beyond a base line of essential features of what a piece of music is all about-then in terms of expenditure SKY is the limit. I am talking of the Stereophile reviewer extolling the sound of the Australian Continuum TT- and saying he could hear bits he had not heard on Bonnnie Raits LP before. Now that brings in a question of 'hearing things you are not meant to hear' the kind of detail that is not the essential part of music. He is listening to a piece of music which has not a great deal of info on it anyway- he would be better off having an audition and listen to what is on the original tape- than spend 100K on a TT.
Yes indeed,it's why I went the diy route.I refuse to spend vast sums on commercial stuff when you can equal or better it for a fraction of the cost.
Very much the ethos of this forum-which is commendable. Is it not that Jerry also supports- he has all of sudden gone silent?
I do not wish to bore people with examples of classical music- but take a symphony as an example. The third violines (in the 3rd row) will be playing a different line of music closely related to the first row-but one is not going to hear that difference - although the conductor would know every bit and correct it if they go wrong. It is to do with tone colour and texture and if a system exposes that kind of inner detail than the music will become impossible to follow- or becoming unlistenable and so lose its purpose.
Hmmm, don't agree with that. If your system is properly revealing coupled to an expansive three dimensional sound stage with 'instruments in space' and the sound produced is received by trained 'ears', it is completely reasonably expectant that the listener will be able, even with orchestral music (subject to the quality of the recording) to differentiate between the score being played by 1st violin and 3rd strings. Actually I think this is pretty basic stuff. I thought all audiofools enjoy the skill of listening to a recording and at times like to aurally concentrate on one instrument (or group of instruments) in isolation from the rest of the sound. Thats the brain and listening skill bit which works when the system is good! Sorry, no offence intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varun
Some of the arguements presented here don't make sense. If they did, a couple of old transistor radios with 2 inch speakers would do the business because, of course, according to arguement, the brain would fill in all that is missing?
Hmmm once again!
Sorry to butt in chaps...
Hi Greg,
Welcome back :)
Are you coming to Owston?
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Simply, 'No'
Regards,
Greg
Ok, no worries - welcome back anyway :)
As you were, chaps...
Marco.
To be able to hear the individual elements in a classical music recording depends upon the final mixing - whether the perspective is from the conductors podium, or whether the balance is from further away with far more ambience from the venue "blending" things together.
Musical listening, as apart from "HiFi" listening, is supposed to allow you to dip in and out of the mix presented by the production at any level you wish and the best systems I've ever heard (inexpensive ones as well) just let me forget the gear, format, recording production and "suspend disbelief."
As someone who's been a collector of unofficial live recordings for as many years as I've had a hi-fi, the ability to tune-out bad stuff is very familiar. Others have said the same thing about enjoying early blues or jazz recordings. But for me, regardless of the original source recording, I have sought to put together a system (mainly source components, admittedly) that minimises the 'losses' on reproduction of the original sound. I think most people would be amazed by the difference in sound from a budget 'hi-fi' tape deck and a high-end one. It's one of the components where the difference from top to bottom is most marked, and most audiophiles' expectations are so low...
On a more controversial note, I have often suspected that 'run in' - at least when considered in relation to cables - is more to do with getting used to - or willing a change in - the sound than a change in the hardware itself.
I'm happy to accept that more complex devices do benefit from run-in / warming up - capacitors 'form', operating temperature affects internal resistances, mechanical components such as cartridge cantilevers change due to use, but cables?