|
Posted by Paul S on
08-16-2024
|
There’s been lots of talk for decades on the subject of “accuracy vs. musicality”, including recently here in the “Best Commercial Speakers” thread. My own system reflects my own efforts to realize Sound and Music I want to live with in my own home, and there are so many “considerations” that have gone into my system that there would be no way to briefly summarize my “rationale” on this board. It seems like many GSC posters are aware that improving a targeted aspect of ones playback might well bring other “issues” to light, and anyone who has been at this for long knows that there is more to making a compromise than settling on smoothness, although smoothness is, indeed, a popular antidote for “too much” of any number of things. Another way to “deal with” “too much” is to limit output. This includes systems that have good tone and texture and good response with simpler Music at lower volumes. I have said and I repeat here that I think this is a good strategy for those who are not in a position to “crank it up” in any case. Those who want power, range, dynamics and “accuracy” along with “musicality” have their work cut out for them. My current strategy is 2 (pro) horns above 1.2k Hz. They deliver considerable power and “accuracy” over a wide frequency and dynamic range, up to very loud playback volume. I use a 10” paper dynamic driver to handle from 200 Hz to 1.2k Hz. It is a “pro” unit, “efficient” and responsive enough to keep up with the horns while working in their limited range, and they can also take and make a lot of power in their range. While I can’t say this driver has “better tone” than some of my vintage drivers used within their limits, I can say these pro drivers have a much “wider range of expression” than the vintage drivers I have heard. My 18” (pro) woofers are made of some sort of “carbon” fabric, with tremendous output to 25 Hz. I have tried but I have not been able to hear transitions between drivers playing music in my system. While my horns do seem to have “good tone” (for horns…), I do not think the “clarity” of the horns makes for better tone. They do make good “texture”, and notably better texture when the going gets tough than hi-fi dynamic drivers do in their frequency range.
Something worth wondering about is how one knows speakers are “accurate” with respect to reproduction. For me, accuracy means fidelity to the recording. Taken alone, “accurate reproduction” might or might not make Music in one’s home, and I’ve found it’s much harder to get Music as the stakes are raised in terms of range and dynamics. I have shared that I began tempering my system sound years ago in order to get more Music from more recordings. I have consciously avoided system “own sound”, but (of course) I could be deaf to this, as I have spent so long working my way to where I am now. To my ears, I have both accuracy and musicality with this system. Naturally, YMMV.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gargoyle on
08-17-2024
|
...I promise no Nickleback.
 Paul S wrote: | |
For me, accuracy means fidelity to
the recording. Taken alone, “accurate reproduction” might or might not make
Music in one’s home,...
Paul S >gt;
|
|
This is a rational way to look at it. Recordings are just that, we can do our best to extract what we can from these recordings for better or worse.
A recording of a piano in a hall, will never sound like an actual piano in my room, why should it? A recording is reliant on the microphone selection, tastes of the microphone operator, reverberations of the room etc. The environment is part and parcel to the piano.
If you record a lone violin in your room,to play back in your room, perhaps then you can talk about how "real" something sounds.
Recordings are photographs.
"Accuracy" is a global term, implying fidelity.
The term "musicality" is of limited in utility when discussing reproduction if we don't even like or listen to the same music.
Musicality as an actual term is used in discussions for the types of distortion that guitar amplifiers make. It's not something that a HiFi person wants in any quantity. Perhaps used to describe the syrupy sound of some vintage receiver. The lesser of two evils sure if the option is odd order distortion. It's a borrowed phrase to use when you have nothing else.
It's about as useful as discussing "Accuracy vs manors", "Accuracy vs calligraphy" or "trustworthiness." Really, it's just salesmen talk for the naive.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-17-2024
|
Some time ago Romy coined the term "musical intelligence". Not a lot has been said about this since then, but I put the term in my head and the idea snowballed into a notion of equipment that "adapted" to various musical genres. When I think of the (older?) term, "musical", I think back to the gear the term was applied to, "tubey", "full" sound from speakers that pretty much sounded like that no matter what they were playing. It may be that some equate "accuracy" with a sort of "relentless" quality, but I do not, although I have still have a little trouble thinking of "musical" as other than some sort of system "own sound". Since I am a Musical omnivore, I have spent considerable effort creating a system that can (re)produce Music of all stripes in a way that satisfies my cravings, and this requires, at a bare minimum, that playback invokes in me the same (or very similar) reactions and feelings that live performances do, which for me requires "differences between notes", pretty much the opposite of the old application of the term "musical" as applied to hi-fi. To each his own, of course, and I have heard some very engaging light jazz and sonatas played back by "musically voiced" systems.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gargoyle on
08-17-2024
|
Music is heavily influenced by the technology in which is listened to and produced on.
The tubed amplifiers started to compete with "live" instruments, eventually horns just did sound great over radio and solid state appliances (Typically)
Accessible amplification almost completely took over live music.
Some of the "best" Micheal Jackson songs were mixed by sitting in the back of a sedan listening to the rear 6x9" speakers, not in a studio.
Some more modern music is primarily made on and listened to on computers, often just headphones, for example Skrillex et al. To listen to some of that contemporary computer music stuff with a ported woofer isn't the crime of the century provided the bass hits that pass band. The computer IS the instrument and can sound pretty much as intended with just headphones.
In these cases the music is mixed for the lowest common denominator. Very interesting.
Personally I could not stand any kind of music with horns in it until I built my first tube amplifier. I also fell in love with Brubeck.
Conversely to listen to "Moog" style synthesized music, say deadmau5 on a "accurate" tubed system is absolutely jaw dropping, I'm getting goosebumps on my arms right now just thinking of a particular example.
There is a version of "I remember" from 2009 that starts off with that typical annoying dance drum beat, a long bare intro almost makes you switch the track, but then when the music starts to quietly build, the beat sounds completely different. This song eventually opens up to almost orchestra levels, if I may be hyperbolic. The richness, the complexity, the width of these tones are very welcomed by my ears.
Designing music for a specific limited reproduction devices does not exclude it from sounding good on a well rounded system.
I don't even know where one would begin to try and make any of this more subjectively more "musical", without compromising the rest of it.
The types of music that became enjoyable to me is tied to how "HiFi" my system is, even if it is not completely broadband. I would have never got into Brubeck or Deadmau5 without it. Accuracy is more important than absolute freq response IMO.
(On a side note, I'm a little perplexed because I don't hate these temporary class D amps that I am using. It's going to be a real unexpected debate when it comes time to build DSETs.)
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-17-2024
|
|
Accuracy vs. Musicality is a purely artifactually constructed
problem by the people who SELL audio. The concept of Accuracy in audio is very artificial,
and it is just a byproduct of sales pimps as the terms and meaning of Audio Accuracy is very
meaningful, very much as the term of Musical. You have a sting quartet playing in your room,
do you think about Musicality or Accuracy? Of course not. Why then you should
fill yourself with those artificial fears of you listening a playback? Interesting
that there are concepts of Accuracy AND Musicality with playback but they are
NOT conflicting at all and they are not what typically audio people understand
under Accuracy and Musicality. The only fact the somebody feel that there is a
conflict between Accuracy and Musicality is an indication that no further conversion
is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gargoyle on
08-18-2024
|
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | Accuracy vs. Musicality is a purely artifactually constructed
problem by the people who SELL audio. The concept of Accuracy in audio is very artificial,
and it is just a byproduct of sales pimps as the terms and meaning of Audio Accuracy is very
meaningful, very much as the term of Musical. You have a sting quartet playing in your room,
do you think about Musicality or Accuracy? Of course not. Why then you should
fill yourself with those artificial fears of you listening a playback? Interesting
that there are concepts of Accuracy AND Musicality with playback but they are
NOT conflicting at all and they are not what typically audio people understand
under Accuracy and Musicality. The only fact the somebody feel that there is a
conflict between Accuracy and Musicality is an indication that no further conversion
is necessary. |
|
I suppose that is where the term fidelity fits in nicely. Faithfulness to the recording. I need at least one word to describe what it is I've been chasing. lol
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-18-2024
|
I have my terms since 2005 : "Real/Transparent" vs "Emotional/Musical" sound.
"Real/transparent audio system" means you get more information from the record. for example CEC TL0 3.0 transport is more real/transparent than other transports. the method of "Comparison by Contrast" is the way shows how much your audio system is Real/Transparent.https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm
"Emotional/Musical audio system" means how the sound affects on listener for better music listening experience so this parameter is not about the sound and is more about listener reaction to the sound. for example I like simple $2k Audio Note NOS DAC with Audio Note paper drivers when I listen to a simple Vocal of Shajarian. Emotional/Musical to my ears is not about coloration of some systems like sweet or ...again it is about my reaction to music.
I think it is not easy to have both.
another example is silver vs copper cables: both cables are equal in real/transparency but copper is more musical.another example is Audio Note UK level 3 and Level 5 both are musical but Level 5 is more real/transparent.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-18-2024
|
Ah, Amir, you are stepping exactly into the bear cave. Just
above I said that this subject is a fictional invention of tricky audio marketing
and you respond by “The Proposed Method: Comparison By Contrast” by …Peter
Qvortrup. I do not know who another guy
is but Peter is the pimpest of all and the fact the this another guy let himself
to be spitted at the same table with Mr. Qvortrup says a lot.
I did not read what they describe as ”Comparison By Contrast”
but I know exactly what they will be seedling there and I assure you that it is
very wrong. This is what stupid audio industry has been doing for years: conversion
of humanity into a set of abstract, irrelevant but quantifiable quantities. As
a result they are convincing listeners that the acquisition of those
quantifiable qualities is at definition of “better sound”. The people like Qvortrup
will dancing on the stage and rolling they are eyes in ecstasy, using right
words with no meaning, but in the end all of this happened because they want to
move more boxes this sold equipment. The Comparison By Contrast for listening
experiences is as ridiculous as studying a definition of love by multiple
choice quiz. Nothing further can be said.
If you personally would like to explore the subject of real
versus emotional, or accuracy versus musicality then I would recommend you start
from far. It would be purely theoretical exercise but if you think about it you
will find that there is a lot of common with the subjects that you're curious. We know that there is a physical reality. We
know that there is math which describes physical reality. As a certain depth of
understanding the math people begin to understand that math is not necessarily only
description of reality but from a certain perspective reality is the construct
of math. At dd the 4th level of multiverse there is no conflict between math and
reality, between math and physics. Physical objects become just the implementations
of mathematical principles and mathematical principles have on physical
appearances. So, in the end we have two absolutely identical questions: do we
just discover or invent math studying physics and if we are looking for right
definition of Accuracy when we are looking for Musicality.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-18-2024
|
Amir, I hope that "real Music" can move you emotionally. I think and hope that your idea of "accurate reproduction" includes your own (appropriate) emotional reactions to the Music. On the one hand, I cannot simply accept that "detailed" Music is "accurate" if it does not move me. In other words, the "emotional" and "intentional" information needs to be there before I think of playback as "accurate", in the first place. Like Romy has said outright, if it isn't "musical" it isn't "accurate". Looking more closely at the fine points, I think it is possible to be emotionally involved without "all the details". And I agree that some systems seem to present plenty of details while sounding lifeless. However, I certainly would not say that these are two poles that represent The State of the Art. IMO, the "current State of the Art" melds and thereby obviates these "poles". Changing my direction but staying on the subject, I have used "efficient" speakers for many years because they strike me as being more "emotionally responsive", "tracking the Music" more closely, including "the emotional parts". Sure, there are amps and "other considerations", but, generally speaking, I would "recommend" to anyone who asked to start with "musically responsive" speakers, and at least to start the intellectual exercise of mentally building a system there. I have heard to exhaustion that "accurate" means "cold" and/or "dead/lifeless". What a load of crap! I hope nobody reading this site accepts this ridiculous notion!
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-19-2024
|
| Romy the Cat wrote: | Ah, Amir, you are stepping exactly into the bear cave. Just
above I said that this subject is a fictional invention of tricky audio marketing
and you respond by “The Proposed Method: Comparison By Contrast” by …Peter
Qvortrup. I do not know who another guy
is but Peter is the pimpest of all and the fact the this another guy let himself
to be spitted at the same table with Mr. Qvortrup says a lot.
I did not read what they describe as ”Comparison By Contrast”
but I know exactly what they will be seedling there and I assure you that it is
very wrong. This is what stupid audio industry has been doing for years: conversion
of humanity into a set of abstract, irrelevant but quantifiable quantities. As
a result they are convincing listeners that the acquisition of those
quantifiable qualities is at definition of “better sound”. The people like Qvortrup
will dancing on the stage and rolling they are eyes in ecstasy, using right
words with no meaning, but in the end all of this happened because they want to
move more boxes this sold equipment. The Comparison By Contrast for listening
experiences is as ridiculous as studying a definition of love by multiple
choice quiz. Nothing further can be said.
If you personally would like to explore the subject of real
versus emotional, or accuracy versus musicality then I would recommend you start
from far. It would be purely theoretical exercise but if you think about it you
will find that there is a lot of common with the subjects that you're curious. We know that there is a physical reality. We
know that there is math which describes physical reality. As a certain depth of
understanding the math people begin to understand that math is not necessarily only
description of reality but from a certain perspective reality is the construct
of math. At dd the 4th level of multiverse there is no conflict between math and
reality, between math and physics. Physical objects become just the implementations
of mathematical principles and mathematical principles have on physical
appearances. So, in the end we have two absolutely identical questions: do we
just discover or invent math studying physics and if we are looking for right
definition of Accuracy when we are looking for Musicality. |
|
Romy, Thank you for sharing your idea.
Please let forget about “comparison by contrast” method.About mathematics and the real world (physical reallity) I think there is no solid bassment for mathematics as you know kurt Godel has an article about it.It means Mathematics is just our brain language for describing the physical reallity not more and as you know karl popper has an article about “definition of science” . In his definition the science should change. Scientific mathematic models are not equal to physical reallity.
My terms “real” and “musical” both are about subjective listening experience and if I say system A is more “real/transparent/perfect…” then it means my listening experience tell me (for example) CEC TL0 3.0 reveals more information (from CD) for my brain.I do not say CEC reveals more information if we look at it’s objective measurements so all of my terms come from my brain not from objective measurements.I think you and all of audiophiles agree about all audio systems are not equal in this regard and for example an advanced properly setup 6 channel playback reveals more information (I mean more real) than a simple portable mp3 player.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-19-2024
|
Musicality is not opposite of reallity and there is no conflict here so a good audio system could be both musical and real.Musicality is about beauty/harmony or in short the music message .I think the challenge is advancing a playback for more real sound without loosing musicality.
As you know in speaker design more real sound needs more channels (more complexity) but most of the time more complexity decrease musicality.
I remember Romy liked simple Tannoy/Yamaha for musicality but all of us believe Macondo system has more reallity.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-20-2024
|
| Paul S wrote: | Amir, I hope that "real Music" can move you emotionally. I think and hope that your idea of "accurate reproduction" includes your own (appropriate) emotional reactions to the Music. On the one hand, I cannot simply accept that "detailed" Music is "accurate" if it does not move me. In other words, the "emotional" and "intentional" information needs to be there before I think of playback as "accurate", in the first place. Like Romy has said outright, if it isn't "musical" it isn't "accurate". Looking more closely at the fine points, I think it is possible to be emotionally involved without "all the details". And I agree that some systems seem to present plenty of details while sounding lifeless. However, I certainly would not say that these are two poles that represent The State of the Art. IMO, the "current State of the Art" melds and thereby obviates these "poles". Changing my direction but staying on the subject, I have used "efficient" speakers for many years because they strike me as being more "emotionally responsive", "tracking the Music" more closely, including "the emotional parts". Sure, there are amps and "other considerations", but, generally speaking, I would "recommend" to anyone who asked to start with "musically responsive" speakers, and at least to start the intellectual exercise of mentally building a system there. I have heard to exhaustion that "accurate" means "cold" and/or "dead/lifeless". What a load of crap! I hope nobody reading this site accepts this ridiculous notion!
Paul S |
|
Paul, if you like more musical systems then it does not mean musical systems are not real. Let me share my experiance about modern gryphon trident speaker (big 3way €80,000) vs Small Living Voice obx (2way $10,000) .The “comparison by contrast method” does not depend on listener taste so this method is more useful because it’s reference point is independent. You can do comparision by contrast method in different ways and it is very simple to do that.We used one CD and one LP from one album and listened to both media in two audio systems.It was very simple to realize that Living Voice obx had more contrast between CD and LP (it means living voice was more real) and also Living Voice was more musical.
Most modern speakers actally are not real/transparent as they claim. I think most modern speakers are not musical and are not real/transparent.As you see a simple 2way paper driver (living voice) give you more information from record than a big expensive modern speaker like gryphon.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-20-2024
|
Amir, I suppose there are audio products I have not heard that do a good job, especially when we're talking about someone else's idea of a "good job". Speaking for myself, I would not be loooking for power and range from 2-way speakers, because my experience strongly suggests it doesn't work. I am willing to re-think this idea as soon as I hear the exception. I have accumulated notions like this for different components and for component matching, based on personal experience. A lot of ink has been spilled at GSC about another of my fairly-fixed notions, that high cost and/or complexity are not guarantees of good sound, no matter the blurbs that accompany the product. Rather they are what they are, simply high cost and/or complexity. Back to speakers, I still think it takes (the "right") big speakers to effectively make big sound, especially Big Sound for Big Music. Though I would be delighted to hear an exception, I have not heard an exception to this in over 60 years at hi-fi. Sure, there are plenty of audio products, most of them, in fact, that don't "live up to their price", and the same could be said regarding size and/or complexity. I certainly sympathize with dealers who honestly want to offer either "the best" or "best value" in audio. I suppose "best value" is easier, but it appears that the endless parade of products claiming to be "the best" will continue, as ever. Remember that, here at GSC, a Basic Tenet is the idea that audio is personal. Not sure how to sell this.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-20-2024
|
Is Audio Personal?
Paul,
I think audio is not personal or it is better to say it is not 100% personal. Music type can affects on our choices but finally I believe audio is not about taste.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-20-2024
|
Amir, I hope you will continue to flesh out your idea that hi-fi is not personal, especially as this relates to "accuracy vs. musicality". At this point it seems to fly in the face of my own experience, also widely accepted ideas about "experiencing reality". You did go on to say, "not 100% personal", so perhaps that 99.999+% qualifier gives you some daylight, or perhaps (as I hope) I can learn something here.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-21-2024
|
It is a very interesting question, and the answer would be
the direction you look at the answer. Pretend you are building in your basement
a train model. You have a large table, and you spent thousands of dollars and
years of time to constrict your vision of the locomotive city. Are your
successes and failures are the mater of your existence and ultimately a Personal
matter of your life? Yes, you kids enjoy it, you friend and collaborations
actively participate in painting of your trains but in the end of all that
noise (that somebody might call life) it is strictly your Personal endeavor,
and you are obtaining from it you very Personal satisfaction, if you do. That
last “if you do” is very important in my view. Let me to explain.
Audio is no different from what I described above. There are
a lot of people in audio who feel that “painting of trains” is the purpose of
the high-end audio. They participate in constant equipment rotation and other
“painting of trains” and by doing it they are practicing audio as they see it.
There was a period on my life when I was doing the same. In my case, it was no
a social endeavor where I was community-supported but rather a personal journey
but it does not make is different from any other “trains painting”. In audio we
do not have a situation when an individual wants to get a truly great high end
audio experience; he or she stores and obtains it as a commodity partially
because the industry offering greatly undeserves the consumer and partially
because a consumer needs to go over a very lengthy and very turbulent ceremony
of understanding how to listen high-end audio.
It is turbulent because, along with the community of the
“trains painters,” an individual unavoidably gets infected by a set of
instructions of how to listen to the high-end audio results. To degausse
yourself from those typically barbaric instructions for the person who is plagued
in the high-end audio takes years and requires some amount of courage. I
personally met probably 5 audio people in my life who were deeply plugged in
audio but were able to lift the vail of the “trains painters” consciousness and
access the result of high-end audio inhalation in a proper way. All of them did
it in very deeply personal way.
So, the high-end audio is certainly not a Personal hobby as
much as McDonald's Big Mac is not a personal food; however, if you do not dine
in McDonald's but prefer the stakes from Wagyu beef, then it becomes a very personal
experience.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-21-2024
|
| Paul S wrote: | Amir, I hope you will continue to flesh out your idea that hi-fi is not personal, especially as this relates to "accuracy vs. musicality". At this point it seems to fly in the face of my own experience, also widely accepted ideas about "experiencing reality". You did go on to say, "not 100% personal", so perhaps that 99.999+% qualifier gives you some daylight, or perhaps (as I hope) I can learn something here.
Paul S |
|
Paul, I think most audiophiles believe because of the audio is a subjective experience so they can say audio is about taste and every person has his personal taste, for example Mr.X likes accuphase, Mr.Y likes Mark Levinson, Mr.Z likes Krell and … I think this is not all the story.
I think Audio is very very complex subject so most audiophiles never find the right/proper way for advancing their playback.Look at “the shining” film (1980) and look at the hedge maze in the yard, most audiophiles are in a space like hedge maze and they can not go out of that space. Advancing audio needs higher IQ (intelligence quotient) and lots of experience/effort . If you find the proper/right way and go out of that space then you will find the audio is not about taste and audio rules are equal for all of us. The Romy Audio Rules is here :
http://goodsoundclub.com/AudioRules.aspx
I can do a simple test and invite over 100 clients to my showroom and ask them about the test.Place speaker in a wrong position and get the best soundstage with compress sound (A) and then change the speaker position and find a place to get best dynamics (B) and ask the clients which is better? A or B?The answers will shock you.
Another example is about dynamic compression if you adjust the output voltage of DAC (in analog domain) and increase it to above maximum level of pre amplifier. For example the maximum input voltage of pre-amplifier is 4volts rms and you increase the output voltage of DAC to 4volts then 4.5volts then 5volts …Most audiophiles prefer around 6volts even 7volts and non of them complain about the sound (over 4volts), it means most audiophiles are not sensitive to dynamic compression.
There are many examples that shows audiophiles many times go for wrong sound. You can see whats happening in this market.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-21-2024
|
| Paul S wrote: | Amir, I hope you will continue to flesh out your idea that hi-fi is not personal, especially as this relates to "accuracy vs. musicality". At this point it seems to fly in the face of my own experience, also widely accepted ideas about "experiencing reality". You did go on to say, "not 100% personal", so perhaps that 99.999+% qualifier gives you some daylight, or perhaps (as I hope) I can learn something here.
Paul S |
|
I think audio is not about taste and the proper way is clear/specified but because of the limits come from audio parts (for example compression drivers) then we should choose between trade-offs .Imagine if Cessaro Omega I with TAD drivers in proper setup give you real sound with wonderful dynamics and very good tone (not better than tonality of vitavox s2) and you compare Living Voice vox olympian vs Cessaro. Imagine Living Voice has perfect tone and very good dynamics (not as dynamic as Cessaro) so The result may be affected by music type.Both are very good playbacks but because of some limits in compression drivers you will decide about it. I think comparing these two speakers is not about the taste it is about the limits of each compression driver.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
08-21-2024
|
Amir, for sure "most audiophiles" do not have personally developed audio/hi-fi awareness based on "evolved Musical awareness and taste". But this site is one of the few places one can go to for information based on these tenets. I wish anyone involved in mix-and-match selection of brand name audio components good fortune. Again, I think this site has information for people who already have ideas about the sound they want and they are working on ways to get particular sound rather than focusing on brands or "specs". This is not to say that specs don't matter, rather to say at a certain point (in experience) these things more or less "take care of themselves".
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
08-21-2024
|
In my view, serious audio can ONLY be personal - regardless of the type of audiophile one happens to be. There is the gear head that searches for perfect specifications, there is the haute Couture audiophile that has the biggest and most beautiful equipment, there is the audiophile that practices ONLY to be impressed by dynamics and extension of their playback. At the other end, there is the audiophile (often that are musicians) that is happy with a plausible voice piano or saxophone sound at the extreme end of the musical side, there is the audiophile that is on the path to discovering the musical message of the original performers. In many cases, this last group does not even need to turn on the sound system. Reading the LP cover makes them horny.
I do not think that there is a common denominator - technical or musical. In live music, the performance result is the sum of all of the musicians efforts and the audience members listening capacity. In audio, the result is the sum of a single persons efforts to define their needs and nurture those needs.
A clear example of this is the inability to duplicate a system sound in another house (or even from two positions in the same room!). There is nothing here to get my head around!
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-21-2024
|
| rowuk wrote: | | In live music, the
performance result is the sum of all of the musicians efforts and the audience
members listening capacity. |
|
It may only very much be the case, but it also might not be.
We certainly feed each other, but there were plenty of situations when musicians
raised themself over the audience level and were able to throw a spectacular performance
despite that “no one was there.” Interestingly, this situation might NEVER be reversed.
If we have a full concert hole of acquired taste connoisseurs and an idiot
musician, they will never be able to raise the musician level.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gargoyle on
08-21-2024
|
part of the problem is not separating audio from the amplifier.
We could all conceivably occupy the same theatre that would not be personal, how you choose to get to the theatre is personal.
I would like my hifi to get me as close to the theatre as possible.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
08-21-2024
|
| Gargoyle wrote: | | I would like my hifi to get me as close to the theatre as possible. |
|
In my view it is a completely misdirected and bogus objective.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Gargoyle on
08-21-2024
|
it implies the mandatory imperfection of playback and the laws of diminishing return.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
08-22-2024
|
| Paul S wrote: | Amir, for sure "most audiophiles" do not have personally developed audio/hi-fi awareness based on "evolved Musical awareness and taste". But this site is one of the few places one can go to for information based on these tenets. I wish anyone involved in mix-and-match selection of brand name audio components good fortune. Again, I think this site has information for people who already have ideas about the sound they want and they are working on ways to get particular sound rather than focusing on brands or "specs". This is not to say that specs don't matter, rather to say at a certain point (in experience) these things more or less "take care of themselves".
Best regards,
Paul S |
|
Paul, I mentioned those speakers just for introducing an example.
I am lucky because of finding goodsoundclub.
|
|