|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
|
|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Cabinet for Tannoy 12" posted by andrenel on June 25, 2014 at 02:37:57:
{ from the previous... Re my musical examples of pillar-columns vs wide-boxes-- electric-bass-lounge-jazz versus woody-strings-and-winds, well. On a completely primitive level that makes some sense, doesn’t it. An electric bass is a narrow board of completely rigid material that generates its sound via complex electric pickup system. Much like multi-driver pillars with elaborate xovers. As for the wide-wooden-box profile, what does that resemble but something like a cello or double-bass, a woody soundbox after all .... Sometimes an ‘obvious’ comparison isn’t so wrong ... }
____
Thanks A, for your post. On your point of reproducing music versus reproducing sound, well, two things. First is that I completely agree with your reluctance to accept the platitude of ‘it’s all about the music’, especially when repeatedly, fervently intoned on Audio boards; generally an audio board statement of same is followed by a rapt appreciation of some brainless demo material or played-til-dead warhorse-recording. Of that, enough.
The second, though, is that I agree with your assessment in the big picture. It is more difficult to reproduce Sound than just Music; that’s built into the definition, in that music is only a subset of the larger category. But you’re right, even if you flatten all the variables, there is much more to the discussion and the definitions & guidelines of sound reproduction.
I would venture, though, that the rules are a little bit different for the two kinds of discussions. While there is a broad Arts + Sciences umbrella to cover the Sound reproduction discussion, it leans to the science. Whereas, in Music, the arts-and-literature, history, tradition and culture aspects take up, easily, a good half of the discussion; with different descriptors, different metrics for successful outcomes.
And here is where the parting of the ways is clearer. For a musical venture, it may well be that the examination of the original text-- the Recording, in this case-- is the ultimate and indisputable aim. That to eq, vary, rematerialize, reinforce or diverge in any way from the values in the recording ---is a false path. No matter that a tube system may render more lifelike harmonics, or that a high-current electrostatic system may pressurize the room more impressively--- if reproduction diverges from the text, it’s wrong.
Since we’re all adults, though, it’s worth noting that nothing is perfect, that there is distortion and variability in all systems, and in the end, even with rigorous approaches, it really just comes to what seems more believable. Or to which may exhibit the fewer obvious glitches or ‘fudges’.
Trying for a minute to get outside of the regular ruts these things run in, I would opine that new ‘versions’ –new to oneself-- of sound playback systems (whether open baffles or stats, dual concentrics or mass-arrays of small drivers, triode, pushpull, SET, SIT, Mosfet or current-feedback)--- are beguiling for maybe just a bit longer than it takes to completely immerse and “get” the trick. During which time the blissed-out listener swims thru new discoveries, universes of music—both new and previously visited material. After which you start to hear the trick, not the program material.
b7
ps thnx for the tip on current-feedback, on which I'm happily reading up...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Cabinet + - blinx7 12:11:38 06/25/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
