Nope, you have it wrong on the most basic level. Preference for one shite over another has no likeing in the equation.
Ah, but it is still about the attitude seed that is planted in people's thinking - "What is most acceptable?" is very different from "What is the most objectionable"; in the first you try and find something worthwhile in the test examples, in the second you deliberately focus on the unpleasantness, you delight in finding dirtiness ...
There is no damn preference in fidelity, the is only fidelity or lack of fidelity. And dishonest brokers, who prey on the low mentality or low education the buyers possess by selling things that will hurt them in some way (buyers) and convey unearned power to the low lifes (sellers) who sell it to them. Shame on all of you. Those who remain eneducated enough to buy and those who remain immoral enough to sell. That leave any gray area?
Irritability is a subjective matter; what irritates one person may please another so it doesn't tell us much about reproduction.john curl said:
How can one detect missing information? Comparing two alleged reproductions can detect differences but is one deleting something or the other manufacturing something?
Because the information, missing in one, makes sense. Unless you ascribe supernatural qualities to the 'better' system, if the extra information fits the context then it indicates a high probablity of being valid! As an example, listening to a string quartet, and hearing sounds that perfectly match individuals breathing strongly with concentration - if this was a chaotic, random creation of the 'more detailed' system, I'm impressed!! 😀
Adding second harmonic distortion is a good example of manufacturing something, which some people would actually prefer and find to be from a 'better' system.
Is the breathing on the recording, because it slipped the recording engineers attention, hence a bad recording?
Or is it on the recording on purpose, maybe even emphasised, to market the recording as highly detailed, hence snake oil?
Or is the breathing actually noise from an undersized bass-reflex port that happens to sound like concentrated breathing?
Or is it on the recording on purpose, maybe even emphasised, to market the recording as highly detailed, hence snake oil?
Or is the breathing actually noise from an undersized bass-reflex port that happens to sound like concentrated breathing?
I'd say listen to the music, that's what its all about...you always seam to be chasing these things, audio Hypochondriasis, sometimes I think your mind set adds distortions that you perceive but don't exist.
Ears only John, that no eyes.
Most likely slipped the engineer's attention, a certain recording technique was used to pick up the string tone, with this side effect; the recording label was Teldec. Another, nothing special Eastern European recording was played at the same time, this aspect was not noted at all.
If one listens to live performers, then depending on the acoustics and where you're sitting lots of incidental noises made by the players can be very obvious - it's just part of the human element in music making as far as I'm concerned ... I wouldn't want to attach the word "bad" to it ...
As I've said many times, most people find it trivially easy to identify whether music heard but not eyeballed is real, or just hifi. What I'm chasing is the sensation of not perceiving that difference - if you're happy with always being aware that the sound you hear is "fake" then I have no desire to interfere with that - but, it's not my cup of tea ...
The main giveaway is LF extension. Apart from that, hi-fi is supposed to sound like the real thing. Mere audio may not, but often that is not the aim. I seem to recall that you once suggested that a good sound system could be better than reality? No genuine hi-fi enthusiast would entertain such a system.fas42 said:
I don't know about LF extension, to me it's usually the quality of the LF - much audio has a boominess, a bloated quality to the bass, which is completely unrealistic.
The sound system could be better than 'real' because the microphone pickups were situated in optimum 'listening' positions, where no person in the audience would ever be able to sit.
The sound system could be better than 'real' because the microphone pickups were situated in optimum 'listening' positions, where no person in the audience would ever be able to sit.
That just moves the gas elsewhere, polluting more useful threads. Purely my opinion as a member, not any sort of official mod statement.
Well said Frank. We rarely get to sit in the optimum listening position at a concert, be it rock or classical. For rock, I find that TV broadcasts on a large screen with a pretty good playback system are optimum, better than live.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.