It should be obvious that the less impact the reproduction chain has on what is to be conveyed, the more musical.
//
//
> but those changes in square wave performance at 20kHz
> would they have ANY impact in the audio band?
> I am very sceptical.
Have you tried it ?
BIG aural changes with small visual ones.
More than just ' rounding ' though .
Rise time too .
I think that's how Carver does his ' imitate any amp ' trick .
> would they have ANY impact in the audio band?
> I am very sceptical.
Have you tried it ?
BIG aural changes with small visual ones.
More than just ' rounding ' though .
Rise time too .
I think that's how Carver does his ' imitate any amp ' trick .
Why do you say that? What IS 'musical'? What OnVinyl just described has to do with the music itself, like how well a band plays together, how well the various instruments and parts blend together. Why would that change with the replay equipment?
Edit: the various on-line sources of definition for 'musical' seem to agree on 'having the nature of music; melodious or harmonious' .
Not something you would expect to be changed by the replay equipment I would think.
Jan
Last edited:
No Carver just made the output impedance equal so that the speaker sounded the same on both amps.
Jan
You are welcome. I do prefer this kind of communication, through measured data, to written description of impressions.
Musical. Most true to the music performed. In this context, highest fidelity to the original event.
//
//
Yeah, but that is ambiguous... "Performed" implies live music? So what about studio
only music? Or music with no acoustic elements.. etc.
only music? Or music with no acoustic elements.. etc.
The term "high fidelity" can only refer to an acoustical sound.
Otherwise, it has no meaning.
Lest we forget in this battle of semantics about musicality that how one approaches the experience will COMPLETELY change the experience. Sitting down in front of a nice stereo and carefully picking through one's music to find something and then focusing on listening is totally different to hearing the same song come up on your clock radio at "still-too-dark-in-the-morning" as your alarm.
+1
In my experience it is not a contradiction. Every time I have maximised fidelity, all my artificial stuff has been really really nice.
//
IMHO, to believe or to be sceptical takes the same step: useless. The only way I know is to experiment.
Yes, when will we ever learn that you have to figure out usage cases and do proper engineering rather than cite something completely out of context from 40 years ago without looking at modern evolution of parts which are infinitely finer stratified for purpose than they historically were.
Pretty please stop trolling with out-of-touch-with-reality 40 year old documents. You're really a much better designer than that.
Of course, PMA has 'learned' but what about the rest of you? Why, when he shows measurements, do you ignore them? Why not just eliminate ceramic or tantalum caps with direct coupling or at least a modest film cap? That's what we professional audio designers do. Mid-fi (including Sony) is something else. Now you have a clue as to why much mid-fi has a 'sound character', mostly lousy parts.
Code:
That can happen, though I've heard lots of lousy recordings not worth bothering with.
You might not like what the sound guy wanted to get from his studio system as well as yours.
Either way, it's just a preference, not high fidelity, since there is no original acoustical event.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.