| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » Accuracy vs. Musicality (and YMMV) (52 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 3 (52 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
08-22-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 26
Post ID: 27545
Reply to: 27544
Shaping Sound
Years ago I did not like the sound of then-new metal diaphragm drivers, and I also found plenty to dislike about "horn sound" from various drivers in various horns. Over time I heard other drivers that used similar-but-not-the-same topologies, perhaps altering and/or limiting the range to produce sound I liked. Like Romy said in his recent video, there are lots of "hidden elements" that affect sound, that the "Sound Seeker" has to "deal with". It might be plastic vs. metal rings for diaphragms, or the length or "rate" of a horn for a given driver in a given frequency range, but what I am saying is that we can "shape sound" to our tastes if we "just" know how. A very common problem with speakers (to my ears) is trying to force drivers "too low" for their topology. And I can't presently think of drivers that can sound really good running more than 3 octaves. Everyone should suit themselves, of course; but I would not be looking for LF from 8" drivers, nor 1k Hz from a 1" dome. There are plenty of commercial speakers that I think are pretty much hopeless. But I hear glimmers from some, and, like I have said before, there is ALWAYS something to be learned from Good Sound. The buy, plug and play technique will only get one so far, IMO; but until the punter starts to worry about it "there is no problem". Find a (Personal) Need and Fill It.

Paul S
08-23-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 27
Post ID: 27546
Reply to: 27545
My Audio Rule: go for perfect Dynamics
I think the magic key in advancing audio is understanding the proper meaning of “dynamics” .
In my opinion The main problem is audiophiles care more about “musicality”, “sweetness”, “resolution” , “soundstage” , “tone” , “transparency” … but I think the key is advancing audio playback for perfect “dynamics” in all frequency range 20-20khz.

When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find horn speakers overally are better than other types of speakers.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find the amplifier should be match to Speaker for perfect dynamic in all frequency range. I think Romy DSET concept is more dynamic than single SET.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will try to find the perfect speaker position (DPOLS). When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find computer audio is not good enough for music playback.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find ac quality is very very important and also you will find all ac filters and most ac cables are not good.



www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-23-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 28
Post ID: 27551
Reply to: 27545
Favorite sound
 Paul S wrote:
Years ago I did not like the sound of then-new metal diaphragm drivers, and I also found plenty to dislike about "horn sound" from various drivers in various horns. Over time I heard other drivers that used similar-but-not-the-same topologies, perhaps altering and/or limiting the range to produce sound I liked. Like Romy said in his recent video, there are lots of "hidden elements" that affect sound, that the "Sound Seeker" has to "deal with". It might be plastic vs. metal rings for diaphragms, or the length or "rate" of a horn for a given driver in a given frequency range, but what I am saying is that we can "shape sound" to our tastes if we "just" know how. A very common problem with speakers (to my ears) is trying to force drivers "too low" for their topology. And I can't presently think of drivers that can sound really good running more than 3 octaves. Everyone should suit themselves, of course; but I would not be looking for LF from 8" drivers, nor 1k Hz from a 1" dome. There are plenty of commercial speakers that I think are pretty much hopeless. But I hear glimmers from some, and, like I have said before, there is ALWAYS something to be learned from Good Sound. The buy, plug and play technique will only get one so far, IMO; but until the punter starts to worry about it "there is no problem". Find a (Personal) Need and Fill It.

Paul S

Paul, “shape sound” to our tastes is ok for experts (like Romy) not all audiophiles.Most audiophiles use this method : comparing A vs B and if they like/prefer A then they will buy A.This method (I like it) will not advance the sound most of the time.
If I could simplify the terms for sound then it will be four category : Dynamic, Harmonic/tone, Transparency, Image.My rule is “dynamic” priority should be higher than other factors in each step of upgrading the sound (it means no upgrade should degrade dynamics) then we can find the balance between “transparency” and “harmonic/tone” .


www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-23-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 29
Post ID: 27552
Reply to: 27551
It's a Long Way to Tipperary
Amir, I think “dynamics” are very important, too, but I have to say that dynamics are just another “aspect” of electro-mechanically (re)produced music, and there is plenty to consider in addition to dynamics before “accurate sound” comes across as Music. From attending shows and listening to demonstrations it seems like plenty of people get stuck in “sound as opposed to music”. More power to them, and I have actually gotten some ideas from gear/systems that I would never choose for my own. But I repeat ‘til I drop that your system ultimately reflects your (personal) Musical Tastes (or the lack thereof). I will share (yet again…) that I have expanded my system’s “range of musical expression” over many years, in order to “expand my Musical repertoire” and “accommodate increasing Musical Awareness”. Basically, I have re-visited and adjusted/tweaked different parts in order to avoid narrowing my musical choices down to just a few “good-sounding” recordings. Saying this I realize it seems like I’ve “dialed back accuracy” like turning a squelch knob, yet I assure you this is not the case, as I currently have more “Musically Relevant Detail” than ever before, including dynamics. To my ears and taste, “not all detail is created equal” where Music Appreciation is concerned. As ever, YMMV, since – I repeat (yet again…) – it’s Personal.
 
 
Paul S
08-24-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 27555
Reply to: 27546
It is a very complex subject
 Amir wrote:
I think the magic key in advancing audio is understanding the proper meaning of “dynamics” .
In my opinion The main problem is audiophiles care more about “musicality”, “sweetness”, “resolution” , “soundstage” , “tone” , “transparency” … but I think the key is advancing audio playback for perfect “dynamics” in all frequency range 20-20khz.

When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find horn speakers overally are better than other types of speakers.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find the amplifier should be match to Speaker for perfect dynamic in all frequency range. I think Romy DSET concept is more dynamic than single SET.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will try to find the perfect speaker position (DPOLS). When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find computer audio is not good enough for music playback.When your priority is “dynamics” then you will find ac quality is very very important and also you will find all ac filters and most ac cables are not good.
Amir, I disagree with what you say. The spirit of your expression is right: a wider dynamics range is better than a lower dynamic range, but there is so much more to it. It's it not about maximizing of dynamic range, it is very simple to do in audio. This is the problem that the audio methods that we use this expensing of dynamic range damage some other very fine but very important ingredients of the sound, mostly the extrapolation of the tones below and under the fundamentals. It would be simple if it were just the volume of under and overtones, but it is also about their compression and many other factors. Live sound and audio operate in different environments, like fish in water and birds in the sky. The rule of one does not apply to the rule of others. In addition, there are dynamic masking effects and many other factors. So, it is not just about perfect Dynamics but rather the maximum dynamism you can push out of a given audio topology without sacrificing musical and spiritual integrity and intelligibility of music. It is a very complex subject


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 31
Post ID: 27556
Reply to: 27555
Sure, It is very complex
Romy, Thank you for sharing your idea.  I agree you this subject is very complex so it is not easy (or possible) to simplify audio in a simple rule. Maybe I should describe more about my rule, I agree you (as you said) just one aspect of sound (dynamics) should not sacrificing musicality of sound.
Actually the meaning of “dynamics” to me is not just wider dynamic range, I think we can look at “dynamics” in each frequency range: bass, midbass, mid, upper mid and high. In each frequency zone I can define dynamic as 1- macro dynamic (like wider dynamic range, less compress/easy breathe, fast jump/transient, slow decay, pure music energy, pace and right flow like wider and more calm river) and 2- micro dynamics and also 3- dynamic rightness.
The example about 3-dynamic rightness is digital sharp filters in dacs (time domain overshoot and ringing) or ported bass topology, in my idea those are wrong dynamics. The dynamic behaviour should not change in different frequency area for example ribbon tweeters are not similar to dynamic drivers in midrange. The example about killing micro dynamics is like using ac filters or virtual grounds or so much filtering is psu. The example about macro dynamics is 6way horn vs 2way dynamic driver speaker. Multi channel amping is also give us better macro dynamics.

Romy, you have much more experience than me so I should accept your idea about importance of other aspect of sound like musicality but in my limited experience dynamic is more important than tone and transparency. I can agree I should trade-off transparency for better tone/musicality but I do not think I should trade-off dynamics for better tone/musicality. What I think is in right setup (DPOLS and perfect electricity) we can have both good dynamics and good tone.
I always said we can have two audio system, one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound but I never like to trade-off dynamics.


www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 27557
Reply to: 27556
I think you are very confused.
 Amir wrote:
What I think is in right setup (DPOLS and perfect electricity) we can have both good dynamics and good tone. I always said we can have two audio system, one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound but I never like to trade-off dynamics.

The right setup has nothing to do with DPOLS or perfect electricity and it has absolutely nothing to do with tone. The right setup is a topology not DPOLS or electricity . I also very much do not know what it means "one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound". Why we ever have a conflict between tone/musical  and real/transparent? I think you are very confused. I will try to record a clip about dynamics later on.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 33
Post ID: 27558
Reply to: 27557
DPOLS and Tone
Romy, my english is not good so I did not know the proper meaning of “proper setup” .Back to topic :

please check this topic :http://goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=994#994

Please read the A. Polakov :“ 1) When the loudspeakers are placed into the DPoLS then all characteristics of sound improving very strongly: imaging, space localization, transient, dynamic range, space presentation, tonal contrast and many other. Even the tonal imperfections of reproduction become way less notable and less prominent.  What is characteristic that the improving takes abruptly, very expeditiously and swiftly.

2) The strongest improvement takes place in the subjective domain, reflecting the emotion and spiritual content of recording. The DPoLS highlights the energy of performance; boosts the ethical load of the musical content, highlight the intonations and the timbre connections of the musical phrases. Starting with a certain level of capacity of the rest reproduction chain it is possible to talk about not “reproduction” but about the reinstating and resurrection of the “original energy of live”.”


As A. Polakov mentioned My experience shows proper speaker position has great impact on tone/harmonics/musicality.




www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 34
Post ID: 27559
Reply to: 27558
Perfect Electricity
I had good electricity days and bad electricity days but I just had 15 minutes perfect electricity.It was a wonderful experience and the tone was different, so musical very emotional.It was a new experience to me.





www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 35
Post ID: 27560
Reply to: 27557
Tone vs transparency
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 Amir wrote:
What I think is in right setup (DPOLS and perfect electricity) we can have both good dynamics and good tone. I always said we can have two audio system, one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound but I never like to trade-off dynamics.

The right setup has nothing to do with DPOLS or perfect electricity and it has absolutely nothing to do with tone. The right setup is a topology not DPOLS or electricity . I also very much do not know what it means "one system for better tone/musical and another for more real/transparent sound". Why we ever have a conflict between tone/musical  and real/transparent? I think you are very confused. I will try to record a clip about dynamics later on.

Romy, It does not mean more transparency is equal to less musicality, I just say due to some limits in audio parts/design we can choose our priority between two sound.For example good solidstate dacs or good solidstate pre-amplifiers are more transparent than tube version but not neccessary more musical.Another example is you may prefer softer tone/presentation of CEC TL1 to TL0 in opera music but TL0 is more transparent than TL1.
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=6427#6427
I think in this area some prefer to have better tone and some prefer to have more transparent sound.I think we can have two audio systems like your Tannoy/Yamaha and Macondo/Melquiades.


www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 36
Post ID: 27562
Reply to: 27560
Good Electricity vs. Topology
How great it is to revel in Music during good electricity or DPoLS! These conditions really allow one to “listen past” the system, which is a Joy unto itself. But neither good electricity nor DPoLS is a substitute for “correct topology”, in terms of range, power, or any number of “variables” one might summon to parse the sound of music from hi-fi. Ironically, both good electricity and DPoLS remind us of what we “ought to be aiming for” from hi-fi, which is to say, Music. And this takes us back to taste, and how much “Live Sounding” playback we actually want to hear from a hi-fi set-up. For me, and speaking for myself, neither DPoLS nor good electricity sufficiently scales up Bruckner from a small system. Likewise, the “wrong” system of any size does not help me make Musical sense of Bruckner. Which is only to say – again – that “topology matters” and the effects of topology on sound and Music are not nulled by good electricity or DPoLS. And then there is the matter of sources. What are we listening to in the first place? I think “topology” as we use the term plays in to the sound(s) and music from sources that we start with, as well. I have fallen so far off the pace with streaming that I have no idea what “streaming people” are “working with” these days, especially when streaming is used as default sound referred to in expositions about the sound they get from their systems. A nice place to end on the idea of Personal Sound. 
 Paul S
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 37
Post ID: 27563
Reply to: 27562
Proper setup meaning
 Paul S wrote:

How great it is to revel in Music during good electricity or DPoLS! These conditions really allow one to “listen past” the system, which is a Joy unto itself. But neither good electricity nor DPoLS is a substitute for “correct topology”, in terms of range, power, or any number of “variables” one might summon to parse the sound of music from hi-fi. Ironically, both good electricity and DPoLS remind us of what we “ought to be aiming for” from hi-fi, which is to say, Music. And this takes us back to taste, and how much “Live Sounding” playback we actually want to hear from a hi-fi set-up. For me, and speaking for myself, neither DPoLS nor good electricity sufficiently scales up Bruckner from a small system. Likewise, the “wrong” system of any size does not help me make Musical sense of Bruckner. Which is only to say – again – that “topology matters” and the effects of topology on sound and Music are not nulled by good electricity or DPoLS. And then there is the matter of sources. What are we listening to in the first place? I think “topology” as we use the term plays in to the sound(s) and music from sources that we start with, as well. I have fallen so far off the pace with streaming that I have no idea what “streaming people” are “working with” these days, especially when streaming is used as default sound referred to in expositions about the sound they get from their systems. A nice place to end on the idea of Personal Sound

Paul S

Paul, my english is not good and I did not know the meaning of “proper setup” so I correct my post:
“ What I think is the perfect speaker position and perfect electricity help to have both good dynamics and good tone.”



www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-25-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 38
Post ID: 27564
Reply to: 27563
Transparancy vs. Density
The first casualty of “transparency” is density, an effect that can emerge quite clearly [sic] when running ribbons over horns. Not to mention that the audio version of “transparency” really has no natural correspondent. A long while back I extolled here at GSC the then-new-to-me effect I got from then-new-to-me Lamm ML2 amplifiers, the way they rendered the part of the soundfield that is “not music”, and the effect this effect had on the density and solidity of musical sounds, including the instruments that made them, also outstanding tonality. I have not bettered these effects with my current system, but I have managed to extend the range of the effects considerably, according to my wish to listen to and hear Big Music better. It is certainly not a given that wider range and more power are independent of other “sound effects”, just as it is not a given that simply turning up the volume will yield “more of the same” sound. There are plenty of possibilities when looking for reasons for this, and not all of them pertain directly to speakers or amps. Pretty much the same idea when considering “issues that arise” with “increasing transparency”. “Transducers” (such as phono cartridges or speakers) might be fraught with sound effects that manifest as “character” that is continuous, or perhaps “characteristics” manifest at certain frequencies or volume settings, or when the music is “demanding”. As for the cause or causes of problems, I harken back (again) to Romy’s recent video, where he basically wishes us all good luck in finding, isolating and fixing/changing causal parts and/or conditions in audio in order to improve (or just change) the sound. The most basic rules of making headway in audio are (not listed in order): 1) Know where you want to go. 2) Know where you are.
 
Paul S
08-28-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 39
Post ID: 27570
Reply to: 27564
Density is an elusive thing
My experience with "density" is that there is no stability of pitch without it. "Thinner" sounding presentations sound higher in pitch than they actually are. This is also an effect with real players. It often sounds like the performers are playing out of tune - switching to headphones or another system with "density" often proves that the pitch and intonation are just fine. Depending on the care during the driver integration process, certain frequency bands could suffer and others not.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
08-28-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 40
Post ID: 27571
Reply to: 27570
Bingo!
Yes, Robin, exactly. And since there seem to be many hi-fi "issues" contributing upward-developing "harmonics", any respite from this near constant is welcome. I have said that over the years I "opted for density every time", and this is +/- true, but it took me a long time to suss out and deal with this hated-by-me phenomenon. Not that I have totally solved it, either. Up the thread Romy hit on the typical hi-fi dearth of downward-developing harmonics, which sure seems to dovetail with and exacerbate the "upward-shifting" tone problem. He cited certain DG recordings, and I got a chuckle remembering how those LPs so frustrated me. "Grand Prix du Disque", my ass!

Paul S
08-29-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 41
Post ID: 27572
Reply to: 27571
Bad LP or simply another phono correction curve?
I used to think that DG had some pretty awful recordings too - and they did, but the pitch related things seem to have more to do with them not using the RIAA curve. A bit of HF tweaking brought back the balance - if the system was capable! My biggest gripe was the artistic license the recording engineers took in rebalancing the orchestra. Whoever had a solo was brought to front center - until the solo was over, then it was like they walked back to their proper seat.

It was great that those engineers actually learned how to read the scores, but many missed the part of the composers intentions...


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
08-29-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 42
Post ID: 27573
Reply to: 27572
Sound Engineers as UberConductors,
The pipe dream might be a well-located "figure 8 pair" of mics that stays there through the performance, with set gain. However, like so many things in audio, we have no control over these processes and practices. In fact, considering the problems we encounter, from recordings, to equipment, to rooms, to electricity, it seems unlikely going in that we could ever get Musical Satisfaction from hi-fi. As far as the DGG pitch thing, I think they did as many sound engineers do, they cut curves they thought would sound best to their putative customers when played back on their putative record players. Yeah, they got it wrong with us, but someone gave them gold laurels. And it's not news to most GSC habitues that "equipment manufacturers" take the same approach. It took me a long time to build a system that's "boring" end-to-end. I think it's fair to say that most gear is pretty much swamped by signature sound, often of the sort that highlights something as it omits or even wrecks else. i would say (if asked), if your recordings sound "all over the place", you are doing something right. Getting Music from most recordings is another matter, of course, and it's easier (and normal) to fall back on "good-sounding gear". "The Industry" is still here to serve those who still operate in this mode.

Paul S
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 43
Post ID: 27579
Reply to: 27573
I think that the history of microphone placement is very fascinating.
The english have just about written the book on quality playback imaging:
UK Blümlein AB - 1931

UK Blümlein MS - 1933

UK Blümlein Binaural - 1933

US Harvey Fletcher - 1933 Curtain of sound, extreme multitrack - not really stereo or for a specific playback image)

UK Hardy Decca Tree - 1954

F   ORTF - 1960

additional info:https://www.overgrownpath.com/2013/03/music-to-listener-or-listener-to-music.html


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 44
Post ID: 27580
Reply to: 27579
The Performance vs. Playback
It's a hoot to look up prices for restored "classic" microphones. And how many times was I smitten by the Sound of Music recorded by some of these classic microphones? Many. I wonder if anyone has made a list of and/or collected recordings that used these microphones and techniques? I will share here that the first time I heard an original Blue Note (RVG) I realized I'd been had by marketing of Classic "Quiex" copies. Day and Night, and NOT in favor of the newer copies! However, as interesting in its own right the study of recording techniques, we still have to make the basic choice of whether to "tune for the best recordings" or try for more choices in terms of program material. As I keep sharing here, I caught myself going down the first path, with lots of records and CDs I did not want to hear, and I turned around and basically re-tuned my system to where I could get more Music from more recordings. I think my system had earlier been like the "hot mic". And I will say that early efforts on my part to turn things around included adjusting operating points of gain stages. There were many other steps I also took before I got things where I wanted them, and - ironically - both my DAC and my phono stage are running hotter now than ever before, as I figured out how to get the differences without the "heat" via the speakers, which is where it counts, right.

Paul S
09-13-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 45
Post ID: 27592
Reply to: 27580
The Play of Differences

One might say that our perception of reality depends on our perception, internal processing, and organization of the Play of Differences. In any case, audible differences are certainly critical to my perception and appreciation of Music. Time to beat the topology drum again, because this is the only path I know for “maximizing differences”, fining them, and bringing relevant differences into critical focus. How this is done, or whether it is done at all, depends on system topology. All gear imposes limits of one sort and/or another. Some gear imposes hard limits. The art of audio is getting acceptable results with the gear of ones choosing.>>


Paul S

09-18-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 46
Post ID: 27596
Reply to: 27592
There is an important state of "good enough"
In my world, the art of audio is learning to live with what you have. We are creatures of habit and are what we repeatedly do. There is an acclimation period for humans that can never be counted in minutes, hours or even days. Even good habits are the result of long term repetition. I believe those that search their whole lives for minute "improvements" in dynamics, color or any other audiophile parameter are missing the most important one - our own minds.

There are so many posts about gear improving this or that - but those people never talk about their own perception. What did they learn about the performance during the last listening session.

I am a professional trumpeter and other trumpeters have a similar problem: the search for the perfect mouthpiece that makes everything easier, better in tune and more dynamic. I consider these people to be lost souls. Human beings make music, not trumpets. We develop our own voice when we STOP making changes and develop what we have. If we rob ourselves of the opportunity to become intimate with our playback, our instrument, our mouthpiece, our "impressions" are essentially random. We limit our perception to being based on something that we have no deep understanding of.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
09-18-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 47
Post ID: 27597
Reply to: 27596
Again With Time...
Too true, Robin. Surely, whatever it is that initially "impresses" us is subject to change... along with everything else. It seems obvious, but perhaps it needs telling again, the part where, if one doesn't hear it, one doesn't hear it, regardless of electronics, etc. For sure, it can take a while, or even a long while for gear to break in, for us to find the right locations, configurations, settings, and listening position, on and on, and - as you say - for us to become familiar and "in tune" with the Music we are getting from our system(s). It's a lot to process. Not to mention what we are hearing and "targeting" in the first place. Full circle to Personal Audio.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-20-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 347
Joined on 02-11-2009

Post #: 48
Post ID: 27598
Reply to: 27596
Where is happyness?
 rowuk wrote:
In my world, the art of audio is learning to live with what you have. We are creatures of habit and are what we repeatedly do. There is an acclimation period for humans that can never be counted in minutes, hours or even days. Even good habits are the result of long term repetition. I believe those that search their whole lives for minute "improvements" in dynamics, color or any other audiophile parameter are missing the most important one - our own minds.

There are so many posts about gear improving this or that - but those people never talk about their own perception. What did they learn about the performance during the last listening session.

I am a professional trumpeter and other trumpeters have a similar problem: the search for the perfect mouthpiece that makes everything easier, better in tune and more dynamic. I consider these people to be lost souls. Human beings make music, not trumpets. We develop our own voice when we STOP making changes and develop what we have. If we rob ourselves of the opportunity to become intimate with our playback, our instrument, our mouthpiece, our "impressions" are essentially random. We limit our perception to being based on something that we have no deep understanding of.

Robin, Many years ago I convinced my happyness my joy comes from music and audio has no role. audio is another world and advancing sound is not related to my music listening. Yes sure I love high end audio and I really enjoy it but my music listening does not depend on my playback.
Happyness is about our mind state


www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
09-20-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 49
Post ID: 27599
Reply to: 27598
If Not For Music, Then Why Audio?
"Re-creating" music might be "impossible", practically speaking, but isn't the whole idea of home hi-fi to use the system to listen to Music? I think that even during my most manic periods of messing with the system itself I've had the idea - however mistaken -  that I would get "more" from the Music by working some magic or other on the system. I hope no ones total happiness is tied up with hi-fi, but I think it takes some sort of expectations going in to de-randomize the process. I mean, the minute one doesn't care, the tether is cut and the whole process becomes arbitrary. After all, Meaning does not inhere in the system, rather it derives from ones relationship with the system. And what is the system without the Music? I suppose that's not a problem if system building is an end in iself. However, in that case, why visit and post in this particular forum? I haven't really meditated on it, but I think I have fairly high aesthetic expectations for Music from my playback, perhaps - in some ways - higher than when I attend a concert. So, one might say the investment is a sort of speculation. However, that system is worth nothing to me without the Music.

Paul S
09-21-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012

Post #: 50
Post ID: 27600
Reply to: 27599
There IS high end without music!
I believe that an advanced love for technology is as valid a reason for high end as music appreciation is.Chasing any declared goal is legitimate in my view. What disturbs me about high end is when the goals become elite with the sole purpose of locking the less worthy out. All of the top musicians, managers and engineers that I have had the pleasure of working with, share freely - even with those who do not understand.


Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Page 2 of 3 (52 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts