(First I'd like to re-post to the Lounge a highly relevant 🙄 self-test from https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...e-crossfeed-stereo-sound.391630/#post-7160131 )
Everyone please join a fun psychoacoustics experiment.
While listening to music:
o Close both eyes, sound becomes clearer, fuller, more delineated and organic (i.e. "BETTER"), in particular bass sounds louder; YES/NO?
o Open both eyes, instruments (individual or section) are more precisely imaged/located (especially how far from you), compared to eyes-closed; YES/NO?
(Now the fun part)
o Close left eye and open right eye, the left half soundstage is more precise, but the right half sounds BETTER; YES/NO? Of course
o Close right eye and open left eye, the right half soundstage is more precise, but the left half sounds BETTER. YES/NO?
Please respond with your results!
Now, if you agree with me (YES/YES/YES/YES), the question is WHY? (My hypothesis/explanation to be posted later.)
As for relevance, any listening test (including by oneself) must ensure the testers are consistent eye-wise. And there's a natural extension to A-B testing, or rather L-R testing!
Everyone please join a fun psychoacoustics experiment.
While listening to music:
o Close both eyes, sound becomes clearer, fuller, more delineated and organic (i.e. "BETTER"), in particular bass sounds louder; YES/NO?
o Open both eyes, instruments (individual or section) are more precisely imaged/located (especially how far from you), compared to eyes-closed; YES/NO?
(Now the fun part)
o Close left eye and open right eye, the left half soundstage is more precise, but the right half sounds BETTER; YES/NO? Of course
o Close right eye and open left eye, the right half soundstage is more precise, but the left half sounds BETTER. YES/NO?
Please respond with your results!
Now, if you agree with me (YES/YES/YES/YES), the question is WHY? (My hypothesis/explanation to be posted later.)
As for relevance, any listening test (including by oneself) must ensure the testers are consistent eye-wise. And there's a natural extension to A-B testing, or rather L-R testing!
By "organic" I mean "of a piece"; more delineated, i.e. musical parts are each more clear, but each musical part is one instrument not different instruments depending on frequency, and furthermore, they interact and take part in a "whole" musical conversation. Sorry to be so pedantic.
By the way, my first diy 7L TL fiberglass honeycomb speaker with supersized AMT, series-first-order XO, driven by EL84 SE with Mazda chrome-plate 12AX7, did this better than anything I had before. To my great, great surprise.
wchang,
Just to be fair you are not the first person here to use the term "organic" in attempting to describe sound. However, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been able to really explain what it means.
And unfortunatley, your explanation, or attempt at one, doesn't do it either.
I still have no idea what you are talking about, or what "organic" sound means. Or what "of a piece" means.
And this ... "but each musical part is one instrument not different instruments depending on frequency"... makes absolutley no sense whatsoever. In an orchestration most musical parts are made up of multiple instruments.
Just to be fair you are not the first person here to use the term "organic" in attempting to describe sound. However, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been able to really explain what it means.
And unfortunatley, your explanation, or attempt at one, doesn't do it either.
I still have no idea what you are talking about, or what "organic" sound means. Or what "of a piece" means.
And this ... "but each musical part is one instrument not different instruments depending on frequency"... makes absolutley no sense whatsoever. In an orchestration most musical parts are made up of multiple instruments.
Last edited:
Any confusion suppose one-instrument-to-a-part? For orchestral, instrument-type.
... of one organ, part of a whole organism, organized.
... of one organ, part of a whole organism, organized.
Last edited:
Music by its very nature is organized. So I still see no real meaning to the sound becoming "organic".
More distorted sound loses more of the organized information unless you are the composer or knew the score.
I don't know what you mean by "organized information". Music is organized by its very nature.
And while distortion is an unpleasant attribute it has noting to do with whether the music is "organized" or not.
And while distortion is an unpleasant attribute it has noting to do with whether the music is "organized" or not.
Distortion characterized as "unpleasant attribute" is too subjective, narrow, and incorrect (some people like them). Have you never heard music played live or pre-recorded that does/doesn't sound noticeably disorganized?
There is no point in continuing to go back and forth on the meaning of "distortion". It was not the initial problem that I was trying to address.
I simply challenged your use of the word "organic" to describe a music characteristic. This term has been attempted by others in the past and has never been very useful since its definition and meaning are not really clear.
I would suggest finding a different adjective to describe the particular characteristic you are interested in discussing.
I simply challenged your use of the word "organic" to describe a music characteristic. This term has been attempted by others in the past and has never been very useful since its definition and meaning are not really clear.
I would suggest finding a different adjective to describe the particular characteristic you are interested in discussing.
Last edited: