a certain percentage of the population are incapable. Just like some people are colour blind.
dave
The same way as a $50k watch the size of desert plate. See 'epic' and 'relentless' Dagostino amps priced like a Bugatti.
I told my wife I bet I could get $100 for it; 4' X 4'; solid oak. She said go for it!
As I said before, at-home soundstage is not important to me, especially since it is mostly fake in reproduced sound.
I have heard very many live, acoustical performances, including in our excellent local concert halls and in Chicago.
There is no correspondence there. And yes, I do expect realistic sound at home, and my Quads do pretty well at that.
Artificial "soundstage" does not enhance realism, just the opposite. It is distracting and unnatural.
Aside from what you can hear on any audio system, I enjoy the unique tone structure of individual instruments.
Last edited:
That is a big one. Try throwing a heavy tablecloth on it first. That should help some.
Last edited:
We don't have a coffee table in our living room... I told my wife it made no sense to put a coffee table in front of the speakers.
She agreed.
That was like 30+ years ago... no change.
In our den, we don't have one either, just very comfortable ottoman to put up your feet in perfect comfort when watching TV or movies.
So you HEAR it, but you don't care about it...
BIG difference.
Yes CSO is very good... their home is very good. I wonder how long they can last. Same thing with NY Phil.
Realistic SOUND and realistic sound STAGE are completely different things. I’ve never expected realistic soundstage, because I believe that it’s a fool’s errand. Unless you own a space that realistically approximates the venue there are some things that can’t be duplicated. You CAN get it to count like someone is physically playing an instrument in YOUR living room. If a sound system does that it’s fine by me.
A big PA system played outdoors can sound can sound an awful lot like a live band using the same. But that duplicates the venue, AND the equipment used.
A big PA system played outdoors can sound can sound an awful lot like a live band using the same. But that duplicates the venue, AND the equipment used.
Here are what a couple of the live sound companies are using in the "soundscape" field..
https://www.dbsoundscape.com/global/en/stories/
https://www.l-acoustics.com/products/soundvision/
https://www.dbsoundscape.com/global/en/stories/
https://www.l-acoustics.com/products/soundvision/
Well, this all goes to show how subjective some people's choices are, and how others try to infer that subjective issues are objective ones. If some are trying to propose that the majority like/buy what they refer to as "room heaters" then objective evidence will be required. ((Though I'm unsure as to why freedon of choice is such a bad thing). There seems no "right" or "wrong" as far as I can see, but it seems people may think and try to say otherwise. (It's that subjectivity again!).
Could you be more specific as to what you are talking about? Thanks!
Last edited:
I disagree. AES is full of very serious scientific study and for a relatively long time. BBC archive is another example. It's all physic ( and a bit psycho acoustic).
What you describe is true in most amateur circle ( to be honest DIYAUDIO was the only place i known where it wasn't true when i discovered it...) where people like to have a part of 'mystery' into their hobby. I can understand why but it open doors to snake oil, urban myth, disinformation in general. Things i dislike. Though, ymmv about it, that is fine with me.
Of course everyone is biased one way or another, but i don't get this image thing: how i see objectivism is it gives some set of known and repeatable set of measurements which will help in design.
In fact it was the whole point about Dunlavy's interview: for his own way to do things he had a basis of criteria which helped him to design as he wanted to do so. And results are/ were repeatable. In no way i'm saying this is the truth about loudspeakers as preferences comes into play and we don't all listen to the same things.
I strongly disagree, but let's admit it and go with your demonstration:
Well i see your point but you seems to forget something in my view: there is a lot of 'learned' things ( cultural) into the way we use our senses:
let's talk about taste and food for example: some ingredients are taboo in some culture and not in others. That doesn't say if you were clear/virgin of pre conditioning you wouldn't tolerate them. I could talk about Asiatic cultures where some totally accepted food that would not be in Europe for cultural issue only, not about taste. Or the fact we French are used to eat 'pets' in other culture (eg: rabbit).
It is the same with music, there is strong cultural habits involved. And it is true for reproduction of it too: if you are into classical esthetical choices made into rock'n'roll or electronic can be unacceptable ( distortion on guitars, sub register unatural with synthesizers, etc,etc,etc,...). Or the other way around... 😉
About reproduction and my own case: i can clearly hear the elevation axis in real life ( i'm not very good at localising it accurately -like most of us- but i hear it clearly), but in no way i ever experienced it with 'regular'* stereo reproduction**.
Still people talk regularly about this and i don't think i have defect about it or others have superpowers i don't have. It's either we don't use the same words to describe things ( it happen so often...) or they hear things i don't which is fine as i'm sure i hear more accurately other things they don't ( naturally or acquired by training).
I don't see defects in this but preferences or bias. And this is one of the things i learned in here, there is different preferences about renderings in audio.
Maybe it's clearer with loudspeakers as there is peculiar traits like directivity and room interactions which are regularly favoured by listeners with bias toward some styles ( Linkwitz was a good example: he listened to classical mainly and favored OB design as they had a rendering which had his preference with this style). In electronic music most prefer 'boxed' loudspeakers as they go lower in freq (and louder), etc,etc,..
Those are preferences to me, not a defect.
In that case i don't need anything scientific it's just a fact. Could you please tell me in what you think there was an evolution? I can see some in the tools used to produce music but it's not a revolution in the way you could see it (at least i presume)?
Point me to anything which really evolved to the point to make 'things from the past ( or 30 years old)' 'caduque' ( obsolete)?
Well for me it does. It depend of the field in question: for things related to physic ( which is almost everything about the recording/reproduction chain) being objectivist matter to me. About aesthetic choices related to art then being subjectivist matter more... Maybe it's because i'm involved into both fields at the same time?
Anyway it's pleasing discussing this.
Last edited:
My pleasure too.
You seem to overlook one (important) thing: human beings are also emotional beings.
Sometimes just a little thing is enough to trigger small/large internal emotional storms that prevail over any sensory perception.
Almost entirely the senses are where they are and function as they function primarily for reasons of survival since the continuation of the species is what nature really cares about.
Pleasure to the senses has added by human beings themselves over the millennia.
And it touches on and create a cultural fact.
The human beings complexity must necessarily correspond to a higher level of "preparation" for the continuation of the species.
So even our senses, all our senses, are quite complex and very difficult to study because the human being is an emotional being also and therefore a reactive being.
It's not just about hearing, as far as the study of smell is concerned, we are still in Prehistory, even if we want to deepen it.
https://academic.oup.com/chemse/article/38/3/189/320944
Not to mention that one crucial thing no one talks about is the cultural and experiential level of the listener.
A person with little education and little previous experience probably won't know how to interpret (nor how to possibly describe) things like these: silky high, velvety mid and solid bass, if you know what I mean.
So, reducing it to its minimum terms, listening critically to a Hi-Fi system is a matter of comparing one's previous experiences.
I don't believe in the so-called listener "preferences" at all because when the sound is beautiful (I didn't say good), everyone notices it.
One can say it's beautiful, but I don't like it, but that's a whole different story.
Which I doubt very much, otherwise he might say I also don't like the sound of the guitar, which doesn't make any sense.
And one's abilities too (intellectual, cultural, intuitive, emotional, rational, irrational, technical, of loving, of imagining, of feeling free, of wanting to create, to follow one's instinct or not to follow it).
Every choice of any kind will affect your future.
In this context, who or what are the many patents or knowledge you mentioned above for?
To ensure that a designer in a first approximation, before designing an amp, draws on that knowledge and is able (?) to design a well-performing amplifier or speakers, at least in a first approximation.
That designer still has to make an enormous amount of preventive choices and have hypothetically read all the knowledge on amplifier design, but can he really ever do that?
Not even the so-called Artificial Intelligence is capable of doing this.
And so we return inevitably and without the possibility of any absolute percentage, to "technological handicraft".
It seems like a lot, but it's very few compared to what the study of the audio would have to say.
I spoke about the study of audio, not about patents or knowledge which is however subject to the scrutiny of time and of listener ears.
That is, they have little predictability.
A Hi-Fi system is like an unpredictable melting pot.
It's fine for there to be a common basis of intelligence and knowledge applied to audio, indeed there must necessarily be for the obvious reasons, but it seems that each designer draws at his own pleasure from what he deems most appropriate without having to give too much scientific explanation in this regard.
Not to mention what happens when you pair your amp with a preamp or speakers that he does not know absolutely.
So, where is the mathematical model that prevents pairing devices errors?
There are even designers who have created an image of great prestige thanks to their intelligence and excellent management of that image.
They may be very respectable people, when they don't hide behind a finger, and a related profit is one of the gratifications they manage to reap thanks to their skills.
But the highest point does not exist, there are only limits to one's height.
As matter of a fact there are even manufacturers who produce and sell (?) Hi-Fi monophonic amplifiers for $200,000 each, that's $1,000 a kilo.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/ive-been-to-the-top-of-audio-everest.403643/
Since that amplifier is built exactly like any other from a topological and componentry point of view, I don't see why, despite costing $200,000, it can't have defects (I haven't said listener "preferences").
If the audio was really studied as it deserves this would be completely impossible because it could not be justified in any way and creates an huge than illusory question: if a pair of mono amps that cost almost half a million dollars sounds "good", how will a 500 dollar amp sound?
According to some objectivists, equally "good" if their measurements are the same.
I will not take a position on it, I would like to know yours.
However at the end of the day it's just a $200,000 mono amplifier that can break like any other, that can't drive every speaker on Earth the same way, that will sound one way or another depending on which speakers you attach to its output binding posts. and which will make its owner unhappy who (obviously) expects a perfection that he will (obviously) never obtain.
Furthermore even a so very expensive amplifier is just like a brick until a human being listens (emotively) to it.
You seem to overlook one (important) thing: human beings are also emotional beings.
Sometimes just a little thing is enough to trigger small/large internal emotional storms that prevail over any sensory perception.
Almost entirely the senses are where they are and function as they function primarily for reasons of survival since the continuation of the species is what nature really cares about.
Pleasure to the senses has added by human beings themselves over the millennia.
And it touches on and create a cultural fact.
The human beings complexity must necessarily correspond to a higher level of "preparation" for the continuation of the species.
So even our senses, all our senses, are quite complex and very difficult to study because the human being is an emotional being also and therefore a reactive being.
It's not just about hearing, as far as the study of smell is concerned, we are still in Prehistory, even if we want to deepen it.
https://academic.oup.com/chemse/article/38/3/189/320944
Not to mention that one crucial thing no one talks about is the cultural and experiential level of the listener.
A person with little education and little previous experience probably won't know how to interpret (nor how to possibly describe) things like these: silky high, velvety mid and solid bass, if you know what I mean.
So, reducing it to its minimum terms, listening critically to a Hi-Fi system is a matter of comparing one's previous experiences.
I don't believe in the so-called listener "preferences" at all because when the sound is beautiful (I didn't say good), everyone notices it.
One can say it's beautiful, but I don't like it, but that's a whole different story.
Which I doubt very much, otherwise he might say I also don't like the sound of the guitar, which doesn't make any sense.
And one's abilities too (intellectual, cultural, intuitive, emotional, rational, irrational, technical, of loving, of imagining, of feeling free, of wanting to create, to follow one's instinct or not to follow it).
Every choice of any kind will affect your future.
In this context, who or what are the many patents or knowledge you mentioned above for?
To ensure that a designer in a first approximation, before designing an amp, draws on that knowledge and is able (?) to design a well-performing amplifier or speakers, at least in a first approximation.
That designer still has to make an enormous amount of preventive choices and have hypothetically read all the knowledge on amplifier design, but can he really ever do that?
Not even the so-called Artificial Intelligence is capable of doing this.
And so we return inevitably and without the possibility of any absolute percentage, to "technological handicraft".
It seems like a lot, but it's very few compared to what the study of the audio would have to say.
I spoke about the study of audio, not about patents or knowledge which is however subject to the scrutiny of time and of listener ears.
That is, they have little predictability.
A Hi-Fi system is like an unpredictable melting pot.
It's fine for there to be a common basis of intelligence and knowledge applied to audio, indeed there must necessarily be for the obvious reasons, but it seems that each designer draws at his own pleasure from what he deems most appropriate without having to give too much scientific explanation in this regard.
Not to mention what happens when you pair your amp with a preamp or speakers that he does not know absolutely.
So, where is the mathematical model that prevents pairing devices errors?
There are even designers who have created an image of great prestige thanks to their intelligence and excellent management of that image.
They may be very respectable people, when they don't hide behind a finger, and a related profit is one of the gratifications they manage to reap thanks to their skills.
But the highest point does not exist, there are only limits to one's height.
As matter of a fact there are even manufacturers who produce and sell (?) Hi-Fi monophonic amplifiers for $200,000 each, that's $1,000 a kilo.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/ive-been-to-the-top-of-audio-everest.403643/
Since that amplifier is built exactly like any other from a topological and componentry point of view, I don't see why, despite costing $200,000, it can't have defects (I haven't said listener "preferences").
If the audio was really studied as it deserves this would be completely impossible because it could not be justified in any way and creates an huge than illusory question: if a pair of mono amps that cost almost half a million dollars sounds "good", how will a 500 dollar amp sound?
According to some objectivists, equally "good" if their measurements are the same.
I will not take a position on it, I would like to know yours.
However at the end of the day it's just a $200,000 mono amplifier that can break like any other, that can't drive every speaker on Earth the same way, that will sound one way or another depending on which speakers you attach to its output binding posts. and which will make its owner unhappy who (obviously) expects a perfection that he will (obviously) never obtain.
Furthermore even a so very expensive amplifier is just like a brick until a human being listens (emotively) to it.
Ha, ha, postings are getting longer ans longer with all sorts of philosophical contemplations 😊
Hans
Hans
Between one giggle and another you could instead define the State of the Art of audio, if you are good enough.
Have you ever seen me laugh at someone?
I've done that multiple times here, there's a limit to free education.
You should have studied it before throwing up random statements.
Jan
You should have studied it before throwing up random statements.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.