|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.90.39.24
In Reply to: RE: Over-simplification posted by Triode_Kingdom on May 01, 2017 at 10:58:18
"Let's just not forget that poor electrical performance, much of which can indeed be objectively measured, will never produce the best listening experience."
Unless it does in the ears of the uneducated listener.
And that's the rub. If someone likes the sound of a system, no matter how bad it really is, how can you/I argue with that?
As long as music playback is seen as 100% subjective then there's no way to try to reason..........with anyone.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
Moreover, people hear differently, this ...fact, allows me to exercise a large measure of tolerance toward people's preference in sounds that I (personally would deem um, er, peculiar.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"people hear differently"Yes they do.
But don't we all listen with our own ears?
When we listen to live, unamplified musical instruments we listen with our own ears.
When we listen to a playback system we listen with our own ears, the same ears we used to listen to the real thing.
So if the system is doing a really good job at it's job then shouldn't that be recognized as such by all?
Let's talk about frequency response, just to start with.
If my hearing is down in the upper octave then when I listen to the real thing I hear the highs as being down and when I listen to a playback system, that has an even frequency response, I would hear the highs as being down.
Now wouldn't that be appropriate or should a playback system compensate for the fact that we each hear differently?
So, just in terms of frequency response, each individuals system would be built to compensate to that individuals hearing shortcomings?
So what happens when I listen to live unamplified instruments with my hearing shortcomings? There are no tone knobs on a violin.
I say that playback is not (at it's root) subjective.
The playback either sounds like the real thing or it doesn't (having nothing to do with personal preference).
When trying to get a natural sounding recording of a acoustic instrument, one picks the microphone and the microphone placement based on listening to the instrument in the studio and walking back and forth to the control room listening to the live feed through the control room monitors and comparing the two for sameness.
The determination is subjective (determined by ear) but the objective of the exercise is just that, objective. The live feed through the control room monitors either sounds like the real thing or it doesn't.
Now I have to admit there are not a lot of engineers out there trying to make natural sounding recordings (at least not in the world of rock/pop music).
George Martin famously said (paraphrase) 'we can't have the instruments sound like themselves'
Ringo said 'we have guitars that sound like pianos. What's next, pianos that sound like guitars?'
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 05/01/17 05/01/17
Well said, Tre.
A close friend (75) has decreased hearing above 10K, how much I don't know.
I am 55 and I can hear up to 12.5K then drops like a rock.
So many stress equipment flat out to 20K, I could not care less.
These quibbles of frequency response in an amplifier are on the margin @
best. Best to look at one's speakers and the biggest contribution to poor
sound... the ROOM.
The playback will NEVER sound like the real thing if a full tilt orchestra
or big band is your bag. Much better chance with chamber music.
There are so many variables but first and foremost 'do no harm';
unfortunately, that means building a decent room FIRST with an ear for the
type of speaker one wants to use. Very few approach recreation of music
in that fashion.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: