our discuss was about my audio judgment and my music background and my audio philosophy, you told musicians know the sound better than audiophiles and they listen to sound in musical level and you told audiophiles care about artifact sound. i think we should first close this discussion and next we could go for next discussion.please read romy post about audio vs music , i believe audio is separate subject . he can help
| Romy the Cat wrote:|
This is very complicated question,
rowuk, at least in my estimation. I do not argue that solutions feed our egos,
there is plenty of it but it does not exhaust the whole picture. I have been in
hear a strong supporter of a view that music and audio have distinctly different
objectives and means, probably it is better to say not “means” but inner-mechanism
for declaring itself. It is not that music and audio do not have arrays of
inner-penetration, for sure they do. Still, they are different animals. It is
would be similar to design treadmills and health, they for sure are connected
and one can be used to evaluate other but essentially they are very different sectors
of humans endeavor.
| rowuk wrote:|
|I maintain that audiophoolery tries to convince us that
there are hardware solutions for sound quality. I disagree. Hardware solutions
only feed our egos.|
Now the complex thing: the
relationship between are hardware solutions for sound quality. I very much insist
that quality of hardware solutions are very directly impact sound quality and
very directly impact music consequences of that sound quality. I know that you expressed
skepticism but I think you incorrect. The
problem is not in the supposition that I am expressing but with the definition sound
quality that might be interrupted very wide. The “audiophoolery tries to
convince us that there are hardware solutions [do something] for sound quality”,
and they are absolutely correct. The key is their definition of “sound quality”.
The sound quality that industry is patronizing for many year is a direct consequence
of hardware solutions, some of them positive, some of them negative. Did you
ask yourself why for over 100 year of audio industry, in one form or another,
the industry never formulated more or less standard methodology for sound quality
evaluation and assessment? My point is that when “sound quality” has a proper formulation
in the ears (and the most important in the minds) of sound consumers then the relationship
between hardware solutions for sound quality is very direct and very unambiguous.
Unfortunately, the definition of “sound quality” as it been sponsored by audio
industry is not the sound that has any relation to musicality or to any other
human benefits … besides the “feeding our egos”.
So, are the hardware
solutions and sound quality related, yes they do. Does “sound quality” is a known
ingredient or even to say commodity in the industry he produced the hardware
solutions? Absolutely not and therefore in most of the cased the hardware
solutions indeed are just to feed our egos. It might not ned to be this way…
i have told in this topic the audio is not nessesary to enjoy music and audio has his rules and it could affect us .audio to me is like buying better instrument (trumpet) to you . i ask you , do you like to have a better trumpet? most professional musicians like to have good instrument and we know they do not need better instrument because they play in their mind but sometimes they pay for better instrument.please do not say musicians do not like audio systems because they are communicate only in musical level , it is 100% wrong and i believe going for better audio is not related to being musician or not being musician. both musicians and regular listeners are equal about going to or not going to audio.
audio has his own world and it is open to you , me and others and i do not believe all musicians should be better than all professional audiophiles because musicians are every day in live stage and their mind is better than audiophiles in reacting to sound. i think this is not true and we should consider audio from a right perspective. audio is not about artifact sound and it is about reflecting beauty and power of music in our mind.the only thing we should discuss is about how a professional listener react to sound and what is the right sound. i write about it more ...
| rowuk wrote:|
an audio event can be anything that our ears hear. It can be live music, a baby crying, a recording, playback in the car.
is much different than live music - especially if we are familiar with
the recording. First of all, stereo does not have enough information to
„recreate“ a live event. It can create only a plausible proxy. This
proxy does not need audiophile artifacts to work.
If we are familiar
with a recording, we already know what is going to happen musically.
That anticipation changes the way that we listen. No surprises.
geometry of live music is mostly not present in playback. This is
because early reflections are far more prominent in domestic spaces. It
is especially distorted in audiophile setups that brag about „imaging“
as a thing and not a result.
In live music, we have intermodulation.
Two trumpets or a trumpet and oboe playing together create sum and
difference tones that change depending on pitch interval for instance.
For music in major keys, this intermodulation is additive - for music in
minor keys, it is destructive. Bruckner used this to great advantage
for instance. This effect is never as present in playback as in live
music. This is because the intermodulation requires LF response to 1 Hz
as well as integration of the highest frequencies.
response is hugely different between audio events in a „smaller“ fixed
space and „larger“ spaces. In a typical living room with the doors or
inside an automobile, we have a pressure chamber. Our bodies react
differently to this LF - a pressure chamber is impossible to musically
Tone: live music has „Tone“. The various octaves have a
sense of pitch and softness and articulation all at the same time. Audio
playback very seldom can unite these factors.
There are hundreds of further differences. You seem to want to argue, but never provide details.
will not talk about synthesized tone from electronic or heavily DSPed
music. Here there is no „reference“ tone (well except compared to the
live PA sound...) and more (LF/HF/transients) is simply only more - not
better or worse.
please read my first posts in this topic. i told reproduced sound is a new sound and we should not compare it to original event. all you say about stereo can not create live event is not important to me .
i do not care about mono or stereo or any other format, i do not play stereo in regular speaker position and i spend time to find a good place for my loudspeakers to hear sound from my room not my speakers.in a good speaker placement the speakers hide in room and you hear the sound from room.i will continue my response in next post.