I know the feeling even if I am not 70 

Here is a hypothesis that I have but I never tested. Feel free to test it if you have interest. Listening extensively sound of yamaka injection fills proposed that the quality of the sound might be so bad from there that it is perfectly acceptable to be transmitted to the any Bluetooth device. I have zero knowledge about Bluetooth devices but I'm pretty sure that if you get contemporary Bluetooth Little speakers and feeds them with some kind of $5 worth Chinese Bluetooth transmitter out of yamaka processor. Then you might have non-distinguishable result.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I know the feeling even if I am not 70  Here is a hypothesis that I have but I never tested. Feel free to test it if you have interest. Listening extensively sound of yamaka injection fills proposed that the quality of the sound might be so bad from there that it is perfectly acceptable to be transmitted to the any Bluetooth device. I have zero knowledge about Bluetooth devices but I'm pretty sure that if you get contemporary Bluetooth Little speakers and feeds them with some kind of $5 worth Chinese Bluetooth transmitter out of yamaka processor. Then you might have non-distinguishable result.

Today I listened via The Loudspeakers to the Music and Arts CD version of Beethoven’s 9^th by Furtwangler/BPO, 1942. I have already gone off at some length (years ago, in Musical Discussions) about this seminal performance, and I could add plenty to that report from today’s session. But right now, I want to get down to some of the Loudspeaker-specific thoughts about sound vs. musical content that arose today.>>

> >

I think today is the first time I’ve listened to this CD since I fixed my skipping CD transport (also documented, in Digital Things). There were no tracking problems at all today, but this CD does have “some issues”, and I think it’s worthwhile to learn something about the history of this performance, and the recording of it, also Music and Arts’ efforts to make it easier to listen to, this to shed some light on what we are talking about. That behind us, the idea I want to play with is the actual sonic cues we listen to, depending on what we are listening for and what’s actually available to us.>>

> >

In terms of Musical Cues, it is worth repeating here that The Loudspeakers have a “flat frequency response”. In other words, any particular sound in any mix played via The Loudspeakers is heard relative to the other sounds, more or less as they were recorded, from soft to very loud playback levels. This means that plenty of sounds one might want “highlighted” at a “comfortable volume” are simply not highlighted. Soft sounds stay soft, and one might miss them unless the volume is turned up enough.  To the good, appropriate details are distinguishable at appropriate volumes, according to the recording. Details are natural at natural volumes, and, more important to me, I get great Musical Insight from performances I listen to via The Loudspeakers. Back to the CD in question, I am not sure what it would sound like via an “enhanced system”, but in any case, any “treatment” or “enhancement” of the sound of the playback might or might not work for any particular recording. Generally speaking, the Loudspeakers are “uncolored”, in and of themselves. As I have mentioned before, as a purely practical matter of fact, recordings via The Loudspeakers are “all over the place” and, for better or for worse, this is audible to me when I listen. Since I don’t really want this, in and of itself, I am glad to share that this sort of information is not prominent, and it is (somehow…) “set aside” from the Music, itself, which allows me to focus naturally on the Music and the Sound of the Music. I find the relaxation this affords me to be invaluable for “deep listening”.>>

Paul S

Paul S wrote:

I am not sure what it would sound like via an “enhanced system”, but in any case, any “treatment” or “enhancement” of the sound of the playback might or might not work for any particular recording.

Paul S wrote:

Bill has said that the ambience must be in the recording to begin with in order for it to work during playback.

Paul S wrote:

By the way, how did you decide on Focals to augment your Tannoys?

Although I have mentioned “mining” Music many times before, I think I have not elaborated on it, despite this practice is the reason for most of the major changes I have worked on my audio system over many years. The Loudspeakers are case and point. They were specifically meant to open up Big Music (Bruckner, in particular) for better, more complete access, and they have in fact facilitated mining plenty of Music in addition to Bruckner. By “mining” I do not mean factory strip or open pit mining, etc., rather I refer to opening my awareness to the Music with the loosely held idea of “opening fully” to the experience. This is for me a case where I am having a rarified Musical experience, since “parts of a live performance are missing”, perforce. As “value” is personal, the practice of mining Music also has an important (arguably all-important) personal aspect concerning both what is realized and what is made of the experience. In the case where hi-fi is a means for transporting and delivering Sound, the audio system used for Music mining must itself be something l can “work with”, as it is only in the junction/interface between the Sound and the listener (in this case, moi) that the audible and therefore discernable Music exists. I hope it can be determined from this that the system is not a direct part of the Sound/Listener interface but the audio system itself must effectively “get out of the way”, along with any “obstructions” or “distractions”, including all the problems with recordings and playback that we have had waved in front of us for so long. My own working version of Jacques Derrida’s “Play of Differences” keeps the parts of something (anything) distinct from “something else”, and in the best cases this means subtle differences between parts are available in addition to profound differences, apropos. One might say the differences here come from “good dynamics”, since they do in audio terms.  But this definition is stilted in the sense that we are not listening to Music if we are hearing dynamics, per se. One might include pitch, tone, timbre, texture, on and on. If these audiophile touchstones cannot be expressed in terms of Music as assayed by the Listener, then they may actually interfere with Music appreciation, by degrees or in total.  Anyone might get off on the wrong foot and eff up their own Music playback with any hi-fi component or components that might be named. In my own case, speaking about The Loudspeakers, they ”can do Bruckner” for me, using my sources and amps, and I am now regularly mining Bruckner performances I have heard many times. The original hi-fi strategy was to get a wide range of Musical Sounds and “values” such that the sound field conveys the Music to me without limitations or a signature that obscure(s) “The Message conveyed by The Music”.  The rote process might be called “Music in Sound”, and the final test of the system is (broadly speaking) the variety of Music the system delivers.>>

> >

Paul S>>

Paul S wrote:

Although I have mentioned “mining” Music many times before, I think I have not elaborated on it, despite this practice is the reason for most of the major changes I have worked on my audio system over many years. The Loudspeakers are case and point. They were specifically meant to open up Big Music (Bruckner, in particular) for better, more complete access, and they have in fact facilitated mining plenty of Music in addition to Bruckner. By “mining” I do not mean factory strip or open pit mining, etc., rather I refer to opening my awareness to the Music with the loosely held idea of “opening fully” to the experience. This is for me a case where I am having a rarified Musical experience, since “parts of a live performance are missing”, perforce. As “value” is personal, the practice of mining Music also has an important (arguably all-important) personal aspect concerning both what is realized and what is made of the experience. In the case where hi-fi is a means for transporting and delivering Sound, the audio system used for Music mining must itself be something l can “work with”, as it is only in the junction/interface between the Sound and the listener (in this case, moi) that the audible and therefore discernable Music exists. I hope it can be determined from this that the system is not a direct part of the Sound/Listener interface but the audio system itself must effectively “get out of the way”, along with any “obstructions” or “distractions”, including all the problems with recordings and playback that we have had waved in front of us for so long. My own working version of Jacques Derrida’s “Play of Differences” keeps the parts of something (anything) distinct from “something else”, and in the best cases this means subtle differences between parts are available in addition to profound differences, apropos. One might say the differences here come from “good dynamics”, since they do in audio terms.  But this definition is stilted in the sense that we are not listening to Music if we are hearing dynamics, per se. One might include pitch, tone, timbre, texture, on and on. If these audiophile touchstones cannot be expressed in terms of Music as assayed by the Listener, then they may actually interfere with Music appreciation, by degrees or in total.  Anyone might get off on the wrong foot and eff up their own Music playback with any hi-fi component or components that might be named. In my own case, speaking about The Loudspeakers, they ”can do Bruckner” for me, using my sources and amps, and I am now regularly mining Bruckner performances I have heard many times. The original hi-fi strategy was to get a wide range of Musical Sounds and “values” such that the sound field conveys the Music to me without limitations or a signature that obscure(s) “The Message conveyed by The Music”.  The rote process might be called “Music in Sound”, and the final test of the system is (broadly speaking) the variety of Music the system delivers.Paul, I do not know how to respond to your post. Before 2025, I would have taken a very strong and highly supportive position regarding what you said. However, right now I have a completely different understanding of how the interface between music, humans, and machines takes place. Or perhaps it is only the illusion of such an understanding. Still, if truth is anything that gives a person meaning, I am comfortable with all the charades I have invented in my mind. Why now? I feel that although what you are saying is very accurate, it is not truly applicable to my current understanding of audio. To give you a clue, pay attention to what I am doing. I discarded what was objectively better by every imaginable evaluation system and drifted toward something absolutely inferior — not only from an audiophile perspective, but from every technical perspective with which I am deeply familiar. I do not feel like a victim of some psychological or metaphysical crisis. Rather, I recognize this as a very deliberate and intentional change of objectives, the means to accomplish them, and the integration of the results. In my current perspective, what you are describing is not a set of questions that require answers, because in my present understanding of how audio works, there are no answers to those questions in the realm of audio as we know it today.

Paul S wrote:

Good luck with the things that still hold your interest.

Paul S wrote:

Meanwhile, I will never forget the experience of Music on LSD (starting way back when it was still legal...), how "audio-derived" Music was in no way limited by the "sound system".