That's one of the best questions I've heard asked on this forum Hugh. Kudos
I have some notions about how to begin to answer that question myself, but I'll hold back to see what other ideas come up.Interesting that B&W have marketed some of their speakers using Alfred Brendel. Wonder what speakers he'd have if they hadn't...
At 100mph. 30 year old truck. With the window open. AM radio.
Experience of what then? Driving?
I hardly know where to begin with such a question. The brain does not 'process emotion' rather it creates it. Emotions are most probably neuropeptides (endorphins are one such), so they don't locate themselves in one part of the brain, they tend move around in the bodily fluids. As for 'sound quality' its also a creation of the brain - there is no sound quality in what's commonly called 'the objective world' - merely vibrations.
Well that settles it then. Of course.
So given that people will pay more for some musicians, but not all, how does this relate back to the original point? Orchestral players are notoriously not particularly well paid and its them who are responsible for putting the emotion into much movie music. Or do you believe that the emotion is somehow hidden in the score? If its emotion that gets the most money, then those players ought to be paid more than the composer - after all the composer just produced notes on a page. A MIDI synth could be used to create the music.
Just to remind you - you claimed that sound quality and musical quality were probably processed in different parts of the brain. And you claimed that sound quality and musical quality were totally unrelated things.
So far you've gone off on various tangents rather than substantiate your claims.
I agree with Hugh's point that musicians can enjoy the music without paying attention to the sound quality. I don't see how that supports your claim that they're unrelated when a person is listening to a high-end system. I'll merely cite that audiophiles often use the term 'musical' of a good sounding amplifier or system. To them, a good sound is evaluated precisely by its ability to convey music in a way which affects them emotionally.
Do you just make this stuff up.
"Your brain has a little bunch of cells on each side called the amygdala (say: uh-mig-duh-luh). The word amygdala is Latin for almond, and that's what this area looks like. Scientists believe that the amygdala is responsible for emotion."
Again the point is: music (for 99% of the population) is about emotion not sound quality and there is very little link between the two.
So get them to play Row row row your boat with feeling and you get rid of the composer. The producers will be so happy to hear this.
And some of the best scores were.
What tangents?
The musician gets the same out of low fi or hi fi so there unrelated. Whats so hard to understand.
Last edited:
Of course I make it up, I'm a constructivist.
If you're genuinely interested in understanding the physical basis for emotions, you could do a lot worse than reading Candace Pert's 'The Molecules of Emotion'.Did you get this from wikipedia? Ah, no, I see one stage back from that - kidshealth.org.
Aha we've found consensus. Almost. I'd say that audiophiles and diyers are probably less than 1% of the population, so no disagreements there. And you've moved from 'unrelated' to 'very little link' so I guess that counts as progress.
Trying to keep it at your level. Is it incorrect?
I get the feeling your just trying to argue, and since Ive made my point more than clear to almost eveyone else, im out of hear. Besides, anyone who thinks the composer isnt resposible for the emotional content of a movie score knows little about music.
Interesting that B&W have marketed some of their speakers using Alfred Brendel. Wonder what speakers he'd have if they hadn't...
Dunno... but in a recent program on TV, I spied what looked like a older Quad set up in his home.
Which part of your brain was responsible for processing which 'level' I'm at ? Curious to learn more.
Not so much incorrect as simplistic and doesn't pertain to the current discussion.
Cool, given your feelings I think that's the best course of action. You're not here to hear, just to make your point to your own satisfaction.
Ah, that wouldn't be me. It would be you that thinks responsibility is an all or nothing thing - myself I veer very much towards collective responsibility. That would extend to the conductor too - he (or very rarely she) bears a high level of responsibility for eliciting the higher emotions from the orchestra. But ultimately, its about the players to deliver based on inspiration from both composer and conductor. A MIDI synth delivers no emotion, even when programmed from the same score.
Abraxalito
"Well you'll certainly not be doing this experiment then as you're already 100% sure of the result. You might wish to read up a long article about Bob Carver on Stereophile. Then again, since you seem to already "know" that all amps sound the same, you probably won't want to read it"
Well I've read it, and the conclusion it comes to seems to be that Bob Carver could make an ordinary $700 amp sound exactly the same as a megabuck amp by matching the electrical parameters (gain, mains voltage etc etc.) through his nulling technique first. That suggests that it's the minor differences in frequency response, gain, mains input voltage etc that make amps sound different rather than expensive boutique components and cables.
I remain of the opinion that any two competently designed amps will sound precisely the same - provided their electrical characteristics are equivalent.
"Well you'll certainly not be doing this experiment then as you're already 100% sure of the result. You might wish to read up a long article about Bob Carver on Stereophile. Then again, since you seem to already "know" that all amps sound the same, you probably won't want to read it"
Well I've read it, and the conclusion it comes to seems to be that Bob Carver could make an ordinary $700 amp sound exactly the same as a megabuck amp by matching the electrical parameters (gain, mains voltage etc etc.) through his nulling technique first. That suggests that it's the minor differences in frequency response, gain, mains input voltage etc that make amps sound different rather than expensive boutique components and cables.
I remain of the opinion that any two competently designed amps will sound precisely the same - provided their electrical characteristics are equivalent.
Last edited:
QED indeed. No, you haven't missed anything. You've implicitly admitted that the amps initially sounded different - Bob Carver had to work his 'magic' to make them sound the same.
Now do you wish to re-state your original 'all amps sound the same unless driven into clipping' claim with additional qualifications?
Gentlemen, the OP sought views of agreement with D. Self's publication(s). I for One would be pleased to hear more of them. Bickering over argument itself is fun for undergrads and perhaps bored intellectuals but does nothing for the thread but terminate it in disgrace.
Same crew - same inevitable results, guys. I read that some of you can do much better when you choose.
Same crew - same inevitable results, guys. I read that some of you can do much better when you choose.
Last edited:
Yes, reluctantly agree with Ian. This is getting a bit ad hominem, and going nowhere except acrimony.
Sooner or later one or both of you will be modded out - considering this is such a wonderful forum for people with strong opinions, is it worth it?
I always drag this one out, but here goes again, 'And the fighting was bitter, trenchant and deeply vindictive, because the stakes were so low'.
Cheers,
Hugh
Sooner or later one or both of you will be modded out - considering this is such a wonderful forum for people with strong opinions, is it worth it?
I always drag this one out, but here goes again, 'And the fighting was bitter, trenchant and deeply vindictive, because the stakes were so low'.
Cheers,
Hugh
So by all means, offer yours. No other postings are preventing you from doing that. Its well known that Doug himself is fairly dismissive of what he terms 'subjectivism' - so arguments in relation to that topic are indeed relevant to whether we agree or disagree with Mr. Self.
Sorry to disappoint but my rambling support for science was posted on P2. I have no need to go on but perhaps we still have worthy critics out in cybersphere?
Maybe Doug could be coaxed from his foxhole to add to the merriment and we can all discuss with less accusative dialogue. At this GMT unfortunately, I doubt it.
Maybe Doug could be coaxed from his foxhole to add to the merriment and we can all discuss with less accusative dialogue. At this GMT unfortunately, I doubt it.
Last edited:
Abraxalito
You're far too selective in your selection of the quote. You omitted:
"I remain of the opinion that any two competently designed amps will sound precisely the same - provided their electrical characteristics are equivalent."
As pointed by Abraxalito, i didn t say that such a correlation exist,
at least not in the sense you re quoting.
Certainly that stability is a parameter correlated with "good sounding".
About THD, the less the better , as this allow for true hifi
reproduction.
The SET amps may sound well to some ears, but it s not hifi anymore
since they don t provide accurate linearity.
As already pointed many times, it happens that some people like
the tubey high level of THD..
Why ?..Because it s a mean to add some musical brillance to the sound
contrary to a baxandall tone control that will increase brillance without
discrimination between the harmonics ranks..
As a useful experience, try an APHEX Aural Exciter with a SS amp
using a CD that has usually a clinical sound.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.