I'm not worried what people's musical tastes are, except they use it as the basis for judging and preaching what is the best type of system. And if 95% of them all have the same musical tastes (and possibly adapt their taste to suit their systems...) then it ossifies the whole hobby.
In the old days it might have been seen as irrelevant because objective testing was trusted. But someone decided that test tones don't represent real music, and suddenly engineers' music (ugh!) became the test material!! Suitability to produce an engineer's idea of what jazz and girl-and-guitar should sound like is the future of audio.
In the old days it might have been seen as irrelevant because objective testing was trusted. But someone decided that test tones don't represent real music, and suddenly engineers' music (ugh!) became the test material!! Suitability to produce an engineer's idea of what jazz and girl-and-guitar should sound like is the future of audio.
It is my experience that people genuinely interested and schooled in music in general have no interest at all in sound reproduction. They can judge a musical performance from the sound of a clock radio. Just like I usually can judge the performance of a stereo system from music that is not at all my taste.
Your mentioning Krall brings me to bring up this. Like so much ´audiophile music´, Krall´s voice is heavily processed. The kind of processing applied is part of the product; I listened to Krall on the Colbert Report a while ago, and the same acoustic trickery was applied. The same goes for Ricky Lee Jones, another singer preferred by many to judge audio systems. These are not natural voices as they are picked up by a first rate microphone under the best conditions; it is sounds processed for effect. I find it kind of silly that so many use this kind of music to judge how natural their systems sound.
P.s. Brubeck in my mind is a good example of the best of music and the best of recording.
Old recordings were very restricted in the "repairs" that could be made. If somebody was off key you were stuck with it. I was editing a rip of Jimi Hendrixs first LP and you can see the splices on the waveform where the engineer did some editing with sticky tape.
Another singer who was more and more heavily processed over the years is Enya
Another singer who was more and more heavily processed over the years is Enya
Thank you for this further explanation, interesting. Did you verify that levels didn't shift ever so minutely after inclusion of the cap?
These days I listen exclusively to Rudy Vallee on 78 RPM. Crappy enough for ya?
Very much so, her voice is her product. There is at least one album (her first?) without that processed sound. It's not bad. But most people don't know the difference between well recorded music and well produced music. They are not always the same. Music is a product, for the most part.
Oh, I don't mind pulling Take Five out every once in a while. And the Standells. And Oscar Peterson (I recently learned an uncle studied under him in the early Sixties.) Not everyone who uses music they like for assessing hardware though. Lincoln Mayorga anyone?
Last edited:
Aus Members Will Get This....
I was studying an effects rack full of mic pre, eq's, reverb, compressor, aural exciter etc when the engineer said..."That's his personal rack, he don't sing anywhere without his mic going into that rack first"...."His mike connects directly, goes through all of that, then I get a feed, and FOH gets a feed".
"Here, have a listen!"....he switched his local monitor feed between dry and effected for comparison......two totally different vocal sounds.
The vocalist ?...John Farnham, otherwise known as 'The Voice'.....pffffft.
If his fans knew what his voice is really like, he wouldn't have any !.
Dan.
Reminds me of show where I was side of stage with the foldback engineer in readiness for band change over time.
I was studying an effects rack full of mic pre, eq's, reverb, compressor, aural exciter etc when the engineer said..."That's his personal rack, he don't sing anywhere without his mic going into that rack first"...."His mike connects directly, goes through all of that, then I get a feed, and FOH gets a feed".
"Here, have a listen!"....he switched his local monitor feed between dry and effected for comparison......two totally different vocal sounds
.The vocalist ?...John Farnham, otherwise known as 'The Voice'.....pffffft.
If his fans knew what his voice is really like, he wouldn't have any !.
Dan.
Last edited:
My fave these days is scalar waves for audio. Take a common mode choke and pulse it, the fields cancel leaving the "scalar" part. It's there we are assured but we don't yet have the technology to measure it. Below another case of the effect is additive so buy more.
Quantum Resonant Technology
"while a tiny lift in the earth impedance of all but one of the output sockets routes the signal grounds directly to the centre of the star and the clean earth terminal. Clearly identified on the casework, this Primary Earth socket is at the centre of your system’s performance, literally and metaphorically. It defines both the order in which you connect your components and also, their listening priority in your musical enjoyment, allowing you to further optimize the performance of your primary sources."
Last edited:
Yes! That's exactly the point
My brain, your brain and everyone's brain can cheat the perception, and it is something known from a long time ago. So I still ask:.is it necessary to believe somebody about what he/she hears?
No...I haven't ascended to a higer plain...yet
, but you are missing the point...
Nope, it's a rec.audio moldy oldie. miragem3i's very valid point was unfairly ignored. While a great deal is known about the mechanism of auditory localization it hasn't translated into a commonly used measurement protocol - equivalent to frequency response or distortion - for testing a core element of audio reproduction. Judgment remains 'in your head'.
It works the other way too! Many 'true skeptics say that new and more revealing tests are useless, and we should not bother with them.
One thing good about the 'true believers': They at least, LISTEN and that is always the final criterion of any effort to make hi fi playback as good as possible.
One thing good about the 'true believers': They at least, LISTEN and that is always the final criterion of any effort to make hi fi playback as good as possible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.