|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-08-2006
|
 Thorsten wrote: |
1) It does so in your system context.
2) It does so to your personal prejudices how music reproduction should sound. |
|
T,
I do not want to derail the thread into a different direction but still I would allow myself to make juts one off the subject comment, as I feel that it would be still semi-relative
There is nothing subjective in music reproduction if a person has original, natural and none-corrupted reference points. If the reference points are civilized then sound reproduction unrelated to “personal prejudices how music reproduction should sound”. Music is subject not Sound. Sound reproduction in contrary is very objective (if proper evaluation methods used).
Rgs,
Romy the Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Thorsten on
03-08-2006
|
Roman,
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | There is nothing subjective in music reproduction if a person has original, natural and none-corrupted reference points. |
|
Forgive me for saying so, but since Bishop Berkley and David Hume it should be well clear that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that is actually objective, at least as long as we are subject to the limitations of matter and the human form of it.
There may well be an absolute reality, which exists completely independent from us, but even if it did, it would still look pretty different from where you stand and from where I do. It will probably also sound different, not because one of us has distorted reference points, but because we have a different "listening angle".
Of course, we are now deep into philosophy, not audio. I could debate this for a long while, but I'm not really interested, to be honest.
These days I go with "take my points or leave them, I'm only supplying as one point view for you use (or not)".
Ciao T
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-08-2006
|
| Thorsten wrote: | Forgive me for saying so, but since Bishop Berkley and David Hume it should be well clear that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that is actually objective, at least as long as we are subject to the limitations of matter and the human form of it.
There may well be an absolute reality, which exists completely independent from us, but even if it did, it would still look pretty different from where you stand and from where I do. It will probably also sound different, not because one of us has distorted reference points, but because we have a different "listening angle".
Of course, we are now deep into philosophy, not audio. I could debate this for a long while, but I'm not really interested, to be honest.
These days I go with "take my points or leave them, I'm only supplying as one point view for you use (or not)". |
|
Well, T, it you feel that Sound is subjective then explain it to the thousands fools who compose, conductor and perform music, trying to communicate thier subjective ideas unrig perfectly objective universal language. When you stop to recognize in musicality Form and pay more attention to the Content then you will see that the Content’s depicture has no subjectivism. The subjectivism exists only in the Form’s depicture…
The caT
PS: I corrected the title as it was confusing
|
|
|
|
Posted by Thorsten on
03-08-2006
|
Roman,
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | T, it you feel that Sound is subjective then explain it to the thousands fools who compose, conductor and perform music, trying to communicate thier subjective ideas unrig perfectly objective universal language. When you stop to recognize in musicality Form and pay more attention to the Content then you will see that the Content’s depicture has no subjectivism. The subjectivism exists only in the Form’s depicture… |
|
You mistake me (or perhaps not). Not only is sound subjective (and music), but all our our experience of (the postulated but unproven and possibly unprovable) absolute reality is.
You experience nothing without your senses and all the learned and born in hardwiding of your mind/soul to interpret. It is trivial to proove that the actual thing percieved by ones senses differs between people, equally, the interpretative hardwiring differs. Add on top radically different worldviews (objectivists, subjectivists, idealists, realists and so on) which again shape our interpretation (both concious and unconcious) of what senses tell us and you realise that no two people listening to the same musician, in the same hall, hearing the same piece played either hear the same nor react the same.
There are often coarse similarities in experience (and we have the charming trait to call those whose experience diverges most strongly from the majority "crazy"), but often that similiarity is partially learned and partially peer pressure....
Ciao T
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-09-2006
|
|
T. what you said is not contestable but it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Defiantly we all perceive musical messages and react to them differently but look deeper.
The possess of “hearing sound” implies receiving sound irritations, reaction to them and making use of this reaction, or creating of consciousness acquaintance with the new sensations. Receiving sound irritations, unless some physical impediments in place (for instance health conditions, psycho-offset and etc), is absolutely similar among all humans. This is what the basic principles of musicality are based upon. The theory of harmony, orchestration the evolution of musical instruments, forms and performing techniques and many-many others things, they all based upon the fact that we humans, as the class, have absolutely identical, almost Pavlovian reaction to the identical sonic irritations. There is no discrepancy and no subjectivism in how he hears sounds. The subjectivism exist only AFTER we register the sounds, compile in into Sound and then out awareness builds up our reaction to the heard. Here is, of course, we all different and way in which we react to Sound would be very deferent and ware upon very many variables. However, our reaction to Sound is musicality that is subjective as I said. Nevertheless, the initial recognition of Sounds and rendering then into Sound has nothing to do with person’s mind, awareness of anything like this - is absolutely objective process. Musically is subjective, Sound (as a derivation of musicality but not as the derivation of the Sounds) it is subjective. Sound is very objective ingredient and if a person has organized mind (people in audio mostly do not have it) and the person has self-awareness to properly deal with own mind and sonic evaluations (much bigger topic) then there is nothing subjective in Sound (do not confuse with the Sounds). Once again: Music (Sound) subjective, not Sounds.
Rgs,
Romy
|
|
|
|
Posted by Thorsten on
03-09-2006
|
Roman,
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | The theory of harmony, orchestration the evolution of musical instruments, forms and performing techniques and many-many others things, they all based upon the fact that we humans, as the class, have absolutely identical, almost Pavlovian reaction to the identical sonic irritations. |
|
Alas, given that different cultures evolved different musical scales (BTW, did you know that the Orbits of the Plants and their moons closely correspond to notes on the 'primitive' pythagorean scales, but not on the current 'well tempered' scale?), performing techniques and so on.
Compare african or asian music and it's instruments and many are drastically different.
Just listen to some traditional mandingo music (as in not western influenced) music played on the Kora and drums and you get very different scales, harmonies and rythms.
However, I agree on your term "pavlovian", it implies our reaction to sound is neither designed in nore evolved, but strictly learned, therefore pavlovian, but different and strictly subjective. We react to the same stimuli, but our reactions differ.
Ciao T
|
|
|
|
Posted by Thorsten on
03-21-2006
|
[ Romy: Moved as a reply to http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2218#2218 ]
Hi Roman,
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | Let pretend that a group of 1000 people have an imaginary ultimate 1000000-bands equalizer, the one that do nothing negative to sound besides juts EQ the amplitude. We take music, EQ if up and down randomly and then let those people to de-EQ it back. Anyone among with those 1000 people who are familiar with the way how life music impacts them will painlessly adjust that EQ and will end up with very much identically final outcome, means their Sounds will be fundamentally the same. Others will set up their own sounds to reflect their or cultural and musical corruptions - they will be somebody whom I call the Morons ™ and I always question what they do in audio. |
|
While what you present is an admirable thought experiment, I can assure you that the premise you posit:
"people who are familiar with the way how life music impacts them will painlessly adjust that EQ and will end up with very much identically final outcome"
is absolutely and conclusively untrue. It is even untrue for a more or less ideal head-related recording made from a normal listening position in the hall and played back via excellent Koss or Stax ESL Headphones.
Some of the worst offenders in "bending the response" will in fact be people who regulary attend ive music BUT who regulary sit in places very much different from that where the recording was made.
In short, your posited premise is untrue, completely and absolutely so, even with what one might term near ideal recordings.
Using the much less ideal recordings made for speaker stereophony and equalised and adjusted to the Conductors, Producers and Mastering Engineers taste all bets are off. Surprisingly conductors often seem to have as often as not no idea what the orchestra and instruments really sound like, even from the podum, judging by the kind of EQ application they often insist(ed) upon (Karajan was often a major offender).
So Roman, I think you need to realise that there is no "objective", "rational" or "absolute" truth in reproducing music AT THE MOMENT, there is merely a wide landscape of hugely disparate approaches that converge somewhere in the middle of the playing field, but very few people are in the middle of the playing field, many have indeed wandered off to the extemes where life is more interresting.
Ciao T
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-21-2006
|
| Thorsten wrote: | While what you present is an admirable thought experiment, I can assure you that the premise you posit:
"people who are familiar with the way how life music impacts them will painlessly adjust that EQ and will end up with very much identically final outcome"
is absolutely and conclusively untrue. It is even untrue for a more or less ideal head-related recording made from a normal listening position in the hall and played back via excellent Koss or Stax ESL Headphones.
Some of the worst offenders in "bending the response" will in fact be people who regulary attend ive music BUT who regulary sit in places very much different from that where the recording was made.
In short, your posited premise is untrue, completely and absolutely so, even with what one might term near ideal recordings.
Using the much less ideal recordings made for speaker stereophony and equalised and adjusted to the Conductors, Producers and Mastering Engineers taste all bets are off. Surprisingly conductors often seem to have as often as not no idea what the orchestra and instruments really sound like, even from the podum, judging by the kind of EQ application they often insist(ed) upon (Karajan was often a major offender).
So Roman, I think you need to realise that there is no "objective", "rational" or "absolute" truth in reproducing music AT THE MOMENT, there is merely a wide landscape of hugely disparate approaches that converge somewhere in the middle of the playing field, but very few people are in the middle of the playing field, many have indeed wandered off to the extemes where life is more interresting.
|
|
T,
There is no "objective", "rational" or "absolute" truth in the initial interpretation of musical content, sonic rendering of this interpretation or understanding of the musical content but it is unquestionably there is an absolute truth in the REPRODUCTION efforts of those rendering. When DG did their “Originals” they did not think a lot and put in the studio the team who by “hearing” brought many different DG recordings to the common denominator of “how it should be”. I believe that they did phenomenal job.
The point is: do not confuse music and reproductions. In audio we juts reproduce Sound and it is not necessary to dive into the jangles of subjectivism. When you sit in orchestra with your musical instrument your job is juts to render scope and there is not subjectivism how you need to so it. Leave the subjectivism to the conductor…
Rgs,
Romy the Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Thorsten on
03-21-2006
|
....because where humans are concerned objectivity does not exist, is not possible, basically, all is subjective, deny this at your own peril.....
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | In audio we juts reproduce Sound and it is not necessary to dive into the jangles of subjectivism. |
|
Not only is it neccesary, but essential. Any attempt of an "objective" evaluation would require cognisance of what is in objective existence. As the only way to evaluate the "objective" reality is by using our senses and by using them to interpret experiments we set up based upon the evidence of our senses we do not have access to any objective reality as such. If you need more, try Bishop Berkley, Hume, Kant, Nietsche for starters (I'll only recommend the light reading on the subject).
This applies not only to sound in itself or to it's reproduction, but to all things, sound is merely a small facet of the all, though one that you and I take a perhaps unhealthy interrest in.
So, we cannot reproduce "just sound" as we have no real clue what sound is.
Past that I will leave subjectivism to the subject, e.g. me.
Ciao T
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-21-2006
|
| Thorsten wrote: | | ....because where humans are concerned objectivity does not exist |
|
Thorsten, as many times we talk about it as many times you completely in denial of a very simple and very powerful thing that the human perception itself, as an evaluation boundary, is a completely and objective force.
| Thorsten wrote: | | Not only is it neccesary, but essential. Any attempt of an "objective" evaluation would require cognisance of what is in objective existence. As the only way to evaluate the "objective" reality is by using our senses and by using them to interpret experiments we set up based upon the evidence of our senses we do not have access to any objective reality as such. If you need more, try Bishop Berkley, Hume, Kant, Nietsche for starters (I'll only recommend the light reading on the subject). |
|
Well, it is a quite a departure from the subject of 6C33C. Still, I do not know why you go into all of this and partially why you need to send me to Kant, Nietsche, Hegel, Spinoza, to the Existentialism, Subjective Idealism and Transcendental Idealism. I went there in my teens, so what? They are all highly useful but nothing from what you argue has any relation to the subject of objective perception of playback. Evaluation of playback has nothing to do with “objective existence” because by evaluating playback we do not asses “state of being” but a “state of dynamic”. Doing this we do not new any pointers to objective references. It is would be like you invented a multiplication sight. You do not really care what it would multiply as your invention is action not a subject.
Look, T, the thing that you from my perspective do not get is that fact that by objectively assessing Sound of playback an expert does not really access the Sound of playback but rather the objectively quantifiable quality of the reproduces musical content. I am talking about pure quality of music content that has very littlie to do with Sound as it understood in Audio. Pretend you and I went to a performance in Queen Elizabeth Hall and then we exchange our opinions about the depth of the given performance projected to the specific performed peaces. The very same happens with the playback systems. The excellence and nusical "qulety" of the Content Loaded Material™ is something that is in an epicenter of attention. The audio under this light is view only as the external discrepancies and those discrepancies are very objective, at lease the delta of this subjectivity is order of magnitude less then juts “evaluating sound”. This is the reasons why I always said that the people who assess the performance of playback by the Content Primitive Materials are juts wasted audio-morons. As soon a person exposed to “heavier content” as soon all his/her mental prejudices about “subjectively” get evaporated….
| Thorsten wrote: | | So, we cannot reproduce "just sound" as we have no real clue what sound is. |
|
Sure we can. It is what the audiophiles do – reproduce Sound that has not reasons or needs to be reproduced. The people who use sound for something more then juts sound itself have no problems to define what sound is
Rgs,
Romy The caT
|
|