Our experience differ. For me live performances is still an emotionally superior experience. I aim to replicate that at home - thats why I'm here. Fulfilment of my goal has gone up and down during the years but I'm in quite high hope.
//
It's a good goal, if that is your experience. Not easy, but you know that already.
But you didn't ask me about live versus reproduced. You sort of moved the goal posts after the question. Tssk, tskk!
So your reply 'Our experiences differ' is meaningless in this context as you don't know my experiences with the new question..
Jan
Last edited:
Why should it be universally good "if they demonstrate that they can hear an audible difference" ?
If he/she can provide evidence by doing controlled listening tests that´s most often already fair enough, as an established preference offers corroboration for the existence of a difference.
As usual it depends on the research question if a preliminary difference test is needed.
As I wrote - I do experience different level of fulfilment of the goal within different audio chains. You don't. No problem.
//
Wrt our discussion of listening test results there does not exist a proof.
Results are probabilities for certain kind of events and allow us to conclude whether we think the compatibility to the predictions of our models are considered as sufficient or not.
To be more specific wrt to the tests we are routinely discussing here it is the probability that a specific test result (and even more extreme results) are compatible with the null hypothesis "could have been random guessing" .
So no proof is available.....
"So you never experienced that the same record did actually make more music through different system components or version of them?"
?
//
Yes.Imagine an amp with rounded corners on square waves at 20KHz. Put a preamp with a slight overshoot. The result can be closer to what we expect. May-be some can hear the difference ? And the same preamp, not the best one with a fast amplifier ?
Last edited:
Now, that clears a lot for me, thanks! While I can appreciate and get involved in good music through my bedside radio, I get more sensation, more feeling and more fun from my main system playing the very same piece of music.
Thinking some more about it, it is a very interesting question I think. I can imagine that you can enjoy playback on a very good system more than on a lesser system. I know I do - the full spectrum, crystal clear, tight bass well you know the jargon.
But more musical? What does that really mean? Some good music that you like can make you tap your feet. It still does on the kitchen radio.
Are we unconsciously 'thinking' that music from a good system is more 'musical' while in fact it is the better reproduction that we like?
Jan
You can either define it yourself or use one of the available definitions which can be useful unless you are happy talking to yourself
Probably ‚musical‘ is more a metaphor than a description when one uses it for say an amplifier.
Normally, I would use the word to describe people: there might be one drummer who just sticks to his beat and ‚plays along the sheet‘, while the other drummer is responding to his mates, goes subtly louder when there is more movement, and takes back a bit when the others get sparse etc.etc.
Then I would call the latter ‚more musical‘
Does the reproduction system give a believable ‚hit‘ sound of the snare drum or is it more a sound as from a wet pillow getting pushed? I might call the former ‚more musical‘ then.
Normally, I would use the word to describe people: there might be one drummer who just sticks to his beat and ‚plays along the sheet‘, while the other drummer is responding to his mates, goes subtly louder when there is more movement, and takes back a bit when the others get sparse etc.etc.
Then I would call the latter ‚more musical‘
Does the reproduction system give a believable ‚hit‘ sound of the snare drum or is it more a sound as from a wet pillow getting pushed? I might call the former ‚more musical‘ then.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.