Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Audio For Dummies ™
In the Thread: Something that a loudspeaker must have.
Post Subject: Re: I, as usually, very much disagree.Posted by David@NY on: 10/11/2005

nifedipine princeps

nifedipine lp 20 click here nifedipine topique

naltrexone buy

low dose naltrexone buy blog.e-lecta.com buy naltrexone online india
 Romy the Cat wrote:

David, welcome . I very much disagree with what are saying.

There are no personal preferences that might be pleased by any complimentary adjustable properties. What I mean: if listeners have civilized and serious reference points then they ALL operate within one unified common denominator of reproductive quality. Pretend that you have an ultimate sound processor that might change any property of sound reproduction without hearting anything else and pretend that 10000 of listeners were asked to adjust with this “ultimate sound processor” sound in order to make the playback to sound in there way they feel it should be. Some very minor group of people after making their adjustments will end up with identical sound, the most approximated to live sound. Ironically, this would be the only group of the people whose opinions and expertise would mean anything. However, the rest of the subjects (I would estimate 98%) will end up with own  “personal different preference” sounds, that would juts reflect their own corrupted references point and their listening immaturity. (This is the major reason why 98% of all playbacks out there suck)

There is another important fact or, that you David, do not took under consideration. The benefits of  “a better playback” might be assessed only in context of real benefits. Under the “real benefits” I mean the benefits of musicality not the benefits of sound reproductive methods. The personal preference might be applicable only in context of those “reproductive differences” and therefore they have nothing to do with real goals of reproduction.

Finally, the “serving the content of the source” is kind of ambiguous concept, as what would be a source? Obviously the recording itself is not “the souse. In fact there is not source at all in a “domain of subjects” and therefore, the “serving” should not be applied to the “content of the source” but rather to the “content of intentions”...

So, a properly used tweeter and a properly implemented tweeter adjuster are do not mean to “set personal preferences” but rather they are the mechanisms to eliminate the pollution of Sound with the contaminates of reproductive methods

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


Maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to say.  Your original post indicated that speakers should allow adjustments to the tweeter volume because the tweeter gives excessive HF.  How can you be certain that it's not the speaker that's producing the excessive HF but your listening space?  I tend to think listening space is often a bigger issue than the speaker itself.

I believe audio currently is really more of serving personal preference than serving content since people have different set up and environment and you can't get the same sound any where.  While my goal is trying to serve the content as faithfully as possible, there is always the ambiguity on what/which is faithful and what isn't.  You can say the musicality itself is what should be re-produced, but what/who/how to judge that what you've reproduced is really the musician's and engineer's intent?

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site