That may be so but I’m 55 this year and although it’s a stretch to hear 15k anymore, and there seems to be a dead spot right around my wife’s pissed off tone.....I find more detail and intricacies in the sounds I do still hear, don’t know if my brain has slowed down enough to listen better but that’s almost what it seems like.
Last edited:
If a person regularly visits live, non amplified music events I belive that a reference is maintained and that the person may have a say in how reproduced music adhere to reality or not. Even if the persons "HF extension" is limited.
//
Yes, constant exposure to live music can 'fill the gaps' so to speak, so that mid-fi can be very useful, even revealing, to many classical musicians. I saw it myself with the classical musicians that I used to live with at IHEM, in Switzerland. Some could get amazing input from just a table model radio! Hi end hi fi is not designed for them, but for people who want higher fidelity in their musical playback, because it can give much of the information contained in the 'live' experience when done right.
Except he wasn't talking about the difference between mid-fi and hi end hi fi (whatever that is) and IIRC he didn't even specify music (I might be wrong) but rather real sounds in real spaces such that they are actually three dimensional and this helps us "imagine" the "3D image" which doesn't exist in two channel stereo.
Last edited:
I was always wondering how anybody can believe in 3D properties sound reproduction (like the "height" of an instrument) when listening in the far field of what are essentially 2 punctual sound sources.
When questioned about, these listeners usually start mumbling something about "holography"
.I thought this is about the brain mapping the sound field to an image of an orchestra (or band), from a previous live experience, with their instrument distribution, hence creating the illusion of an auditory 3D.
Musicians have a very different view of what the audience hear, probably even the conductor - I'd trust a seasoned and frequent concert customer more.
//
For some reason, many place the emphasis on 'imaging' and not audio fidelity that is what I find most important. I can listen happily (in fact I do, mostly) in mono and can ferret out sound quality differences. It is possible that Linkwitz did learn 'imaging' from experience with live music and put just about 'everything' toward getting it right, perhaps compromising other aspects of audio quality. In fact, I once visited him and heard his system. It did, indeed have some of the best imaging I have ever heard, but it had a sonic 'signature' in the overall sound quality that was perhaps some 'compromise' that he had made to get the imaging, or like many, not as sensitive to some other issues.
Although the term 'imaging' is confusing as to what that means, there can exist differences of preference as such relates to the position of oneself as a listener, specifically up front or 7 rows back for example. It is speculated that
My fingers seems not to work so well... they keep slipping...
Anyway to continue... It is speculated that dielectric materials in cabling, capacitors, etc., and also in more absorptive materials in speakers, can cause masking as to prevent the revelation of full scale dynamic contrasts. This could in turn result in foreshortening in the dynamics. This in turn moves the relative position of the image backwards (or not so upfront) at the expense of lengthen decays like extended ringing in metallic instruments, etc., or alternatively not so analytical. I personally prefer a more upfront analytical sound.
Anyway to continue... It is speculated that dielectric materials in cabling, capacitors, etc., and also in more absorptive materials in speakers, can cause masking as to prevent the revelation of full scale dynamic contrasts. This could in turn result in foreshortening in the dynamics. This in turn moves the relative position of the image backwards (or not so upfront) at the expense of lengthen decays like extended ringing in metallic instruments, etc., or alternatively not so analytical. I personally prefer a more upfront analytical sound.
It sounds like you are more interested in "sound quality differences" than a realistic musical experience that hi fi reproduction can give, spatial information being a key requisite.
Certainly SL was a regular visitor to the SF symphony and was mainly interested in symphonic reproduction at home. The brain obviously does do its best to create an illusion from the presented sound source and reflections and height information is a tricky one to understand how it can be anything other that an internal fabrication. But given we are able to discern sounds above us with two ears there are clearly some tricks that can be done to spoof this to a degree. But with microphones flown over the orchestra you are anyway looking down at proceedings rather than at the action!
I want music to transport me somewhere else. This desire probably helps suspend my disbelief to hear things that are not encoded in the source.
HRTF. It's how we perceive height in the real world with out vertically aligned ears, with apologies to anyone that excludes.
HRTF or illusion. Nobody is debating our ability to identify the direction of a sound source, and the distance (heuristically estimated by the sound intensity). But speakers are in fixed positions, though some claim that they can locate the height of an instrument. And that changes (for example) in the crossover networks can modify this height, for what is imprecisely defined as for better or worse.
>Originally Posted by GUNFU;
>Unfortunately, with age, hearing only worsens and never improves. And with this, some should >simply come to terms and think that everything sounds the same.
That's far to simplistic. What older audiophiles should do, is come to terms with what they can no longer hear in certain recordings. For example, I can no longer hear the "tone bar pipe chimes" in Dave Grusin's "Sun Song" - but I can frame where they should be in the stage image and others tell me they can hear them "there". Same instrument in Steely Dan's "Do it again" - can no longer hear it. So too bad for me, but doesnt mean "everything sounds the same" in what I can hear.
>Originally Posted by john curl;
>For some reason, many place the emphasis on 'imaging' and not audio fidelity.
The reason many do that is 'imaging' is the part of some folk's hearing that still works as it did in youth. We had some lightning about 10 miles away last week, so I went out for a short listen before the storm arrived. I'm certain I heard real height, width and depth in the sound coming out of the sky. That was fun! Even with ears that, well, if a sound system couldnt reproduce those pipe chime sounds at all, it would hardly be deemed as having audio fidelity.
>Unfortunately, with age, hearing only worsens and never improves. And with this, some should >simply come to terms and think that everything sounds the same.
That's far to simplistic. What older audiophiles should do, is come to terms with what they can no longer hear in certain recordings. For example, I can no longer hear the "tone bar pipe chimes" in Dave Grusin's "Sun Song" - but I can frame where they should be in the stage image and others tell me they can hear them "there". Same instrument in Steely Dan's "Do it again" - can no longer hear it. So too bad for me, but doesnt mean "everything sounds the same" in what I can hear.
>Originally Posted by john curl;
>For some reason, many place the emphasis on 'imaging' and not audio fidelity.
The reason many do that is 'imaging' is the part of some folk's hearing that still works as it did in youth. We had some lightning about 10 miles away last week, so I went out for a short listen before the storm arrived. I'm certain I heard real height, width and depth in the sound coming out of the sky. That was fun! Even with ears that, well, if a sound system couldnt reproduce those pipe chime sounds at all, it would hardly be deemed as having audio fidelity.
In general, it was sarcasm on my part, regarding the opinion of the majority of local diyaudio members that all audio cables sound the same, like amplifiers, too. Not a statement of fact. Obviously, some young listeners are physically much more decrepit than the elderly or do not want to hear anything, which is most likely.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.