|
|
|
|
Posted by Amir on
12-22-2024
|
Thank you for the video, it is very interesting to see Romy’s audio activity .I have read some pages of the topic started by Peter (Natural Sound) and also talked to David about his audio thinking .I do not try to translate the term of “Natural Sound” but what I understand is I like David’s idea about the sound.
The intersting thing is non-expert audiophiles have less common grounds in comparison by expert audiophiles. Expert audiophiles have much more common grounds in different audio subjects.
|
|
|
|
Posted by PeterA on
12-22-2024
|
Hello Romy,
Great video and I appreciate the description and discussion of the three approaches. Your 3rd way is one that seems more active. One where you can shape/tailor your listening experience for maximizing emotion, and if I understand you, this is based on recording, the music, and your mood. I respect that.
I actually met you once about three years ago when I drove David Karmeli to you. You made us lunch and then played Bruckner symphonies on your system in the back room. This was your old house in Massachusetts. David was visiting me to fine tune the new system I bought from him. His family was staying with you also. Anyway, I invite you to visit any time if you want to hear the system for your self in person. Bring your records.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
12-22-2024
|
|
Somehow, mention of “Musical Potency” has gotten buried
in thread after thread, even those that started with the idea of laying it out for
discussion in simple terms. The basics of “the Third Way” include the idea of “getting
at” Music by listening with self-developed, targeted hi-fi systems, and there
is a lot more to the idea than maximizing emotion, although that is no small
consideration. Among the breadcrumbs Romy recently dropped is a fact that ought
to be highlighted, IMO, namely that success in getting to a targeted part of
the Music often leads to success in getting to “other areas” as well. An
example might be getting greater “macro dynamics” from Bruckner then finding it
“opens up” other Music, leading to greater Musical insight and enjoyment than
one initially aimed for. There are a host of examples I might put down here,
but I also want to re-mention the part about system topology, which comes and
goes as a central theme here. Going back to Bruckner (though one might say, Mahler),
one simply needs adequate headroom to “get to it”, if to get much from it. Sure,
there is more than one approach, but some topologies just aren’t going to do
it, whatever else they might do. For those who care about tonality and timbre,
more headroom must include tonality and timbre, and now we begin to separate
the audio wheat from the chaff. As everyone knows, no one gets everything, and
every step on the audio path represents a compromise. What we settle for on
balance is our own personal expression, even if we had someone else do it for
us. The third way is simply a way to take the audio bull by the horns.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by steverino on
12-22-2024
|
 Paul S wrote: | |
Somehow, mention of “Musical Potency” has gotten buried
in thread after thread, even those that started with the idea of laying it out for
discussion in Going back to Bruckner (though one might say, Mahler),
one simply needs adequate headroom to “get to it”, if to get much from it. Sure,
there is more than one approach, but some topologies just aren’t going to do
it, whatever else they might do. For those who care about tonality and timbre,
more headroom must include tonality and timbre, and now we begin to separate
the audio wheat from the chaff. As everyone knows, no one gets everything, and
every step on the audio path represents a compromise. What we settle for on
balance is our own personal expression, even if we had someone else do it for
us. The third way is simply a way to take the audio bull by the horns.
Paul S
|
|
The question is what different types of music are you listening to on your home audio? If it is only Bruckner/Mahler than yes volume headroom becomes an issue. But of course it is only one kind of headroom since the microphones and recording and mixing have already chopped off all kinds of transient energy and added compression besides. That's why the expanded audio headroom sounds like hifi rather than the much more uncompressed concert hall. But if the record collection also has chamber music, Baroque music, etc than other considerations become more important.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
12-22-2024
|
Sure, Steve, we spend a lot of time coming up with strategies for dealing with recording issues, so we aren't stuck with just a few "audiophile" recordings. Paul Klipsch made some interesting observations on the subject, showing the surprising amount of power required for even simple sounds, and I think this is germane here. I am just saying that if the topology won't do it, then it's not an option. When there is "enough headroom" the sound is less compressed or "distilled", and one can retain density even when "space" is also rendered. Again, not everyone has the option to play loud Music, and naturally they have to come up with alternate approaches.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|